PRIVATE BUSINESS

Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill

Order for Third Reading read.
	Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cable Companies (Road Disruption)

Julia Drown: What steps he is taking to minimise the disruption to road users by cable companies.

Sally Keeble: We are taking various measures to reduce unnecessary disruption from works carried out by utilities, including cable companies. Since April this year local authorities can charge utilities when their works overrun an agreed deadline. We are also launching pilot schemes early in the new year in Camden and Middlesbrough under which utilities will have to pay lane rental, which is a daily charge each time they dig up the roads.

Julia Drown: I thank the Minister for that reply and I appreciate that the fine and charging system will give an incentive to companies to stop dilly-dallying while they are on the roads. However, it will not stop the farcical situation that we have seen in Swindon and elsewhere in which one cable company digs up the roads, causing major disruption, and finishes, only for another company to start again 10 days later. Will the Minister agree to meet me and local government representatives to discuss how to insist on co-operation between companies, so that road disruption is minimised for our constituents?

Sally Keeble: I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and her local authority representatives to take up the problems that she has had with cable companies and their works in Swindon, which she has highlighted repeatedly. Local authorities already have a duty under the New Road and Street Works Act 1991 to co-ordinate their street works, and the Government recognise the real problems caused by repeated digging up of the roads. Our proposals are intended exactly to address that problem.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) is right to raise that important point about street works. In fact, I had just commented to my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench that Constitution hill seems to be being dug up for the third time this year. While we would welcome the institution of charges on cable companies or anybody else who decides to dig up the roads, does the Minister agree that under current rules nothing would prevent the companies from forwarding those charges on to their customers? Therefore, it would be no penalty and it would be the poor customers who would suffer. Will she consider changing the rules so that the penalties are real penalties for the companies, not for those using the companies' services?

Sally Keeble: At present, the main mechanism that local authorities use is charging for overrunning the deadline—109 local authorities opt for that method. The pilot schemes have not started yet and we will have to see how they work. Even if the lane rental scheme were introduced nationally immediately, the estimated cost across the country would be £109 million or more, and the regulator would wish to consider that. We also must consider the £2.5 billion—a much bigger sum—that congestion problems caused by street works cost the country.

John Cryer: Such activities by utility and cable companies cause chaos in my constituency, in the borough that I represent and across London. One has only to drive into London to see that happening, day in and day out. I welcome the system of charging that the Government have introduced, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said—the problem is that one company digging up the street is followed by another and then another. We need new powers so that local authorities can say to those companies, "No, you cannot dig up that section of street." Is there any possibility that the Government could introduce such powers?

Sally Keeble: Under the 1991 Act, local authorities already have a duty to co-ordinate street works and we have issued best practice guidelines to encourage that to happen. It is a real issue, and the charging scheme to be introduced in Camden and Middlesbrough will help to ensure that utilities are more economic in the way in which they dig up the roads.

Cambrian Coast Line

Hywel Williams: If he will make a statement on future investment on the Cambrian coast line.

David Jamieson: The Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan will set out its plans for investment across the network to deliver the key rail targets in the 10-year plan. The strategic plan will be published on 14 January.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Minister for that reply. I suspected that he might refer to the SRA. Can he assure me that spending on the Cambrian line is not being held back by priority being given to spending on other parts of the rail network?

David Jamieson: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration and many of my hon. Friends have made representations to me on that important matter. The project was put on hold by Railtrack, before it went into administration. I know that the case for the importance of the line to the local economy and the university at Aberystwyth has been made very strongly. He will be aware that one of the reasons for the delay was the shortage of skilled signalling designers. To tackle that problem, the SRA is considering establishing a national rail academy to cover a wide range of training needs. I assure him that the scheme that he has in mind will be given due priority in the plans that we have afoot.

John Smith: My hon. Friend is responsible for regional airport development, so what plans does he have to ensure that the Welsh rail network, including the Cambrian line, is linked directly to Cardiff international airport by a spur from the Vale of Glamorgan coastal line? That line will open to passengers next year.

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend raises an important matter in connection with integrated transport, and I assure him that that is the type of issue that the SRA will consider in due course.

Integrated Transport Network

Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on progress in implementing his integrated transport network.

John Spellar: We are making good progress in implementing our integrated transport strategy, through our 10-year plan for transport. We are already delivering: for example, £8.4 billion is pledged over five years to fund local transport plans, nine light rail lines are under development, and we have our targeted programme of road improvements to the trunk road network. There will be much more to follow.

Desmond Swayne: The 10-year plan calls for £34 billion for the rail network alone from private sources. How will the Minister guarantee that, given that the plug was pulled on Railtrack despite its ambitious investment record and plans?

John Spellar: Unfortunately, Railtrack's investment record is that it bid £2.3 billion for the west coast main line and its cost overruns now amount to some £7 billion. Such a record might not give the necessary level of confidence. The hon. Gentleman will also know of the channel tunnel rail link, which is an enormously successful programme that is running to time and to budget. I initiated work on the second phase only a couple of months ago. To take that work forward, the Department is therefore looking at special purpose vehicles. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I were recently out in east London to see the work being done on the east London line. The real progress being made with transport suggests real confidence in the future.

David Wright: Does my right hon. Friend agree that high-performing rail companies are central to a good integrated service? Is he aware that Central Trains, Wales and West Passenger Trains and the company serving the borders are failing to collect fares even on peak-time services, even though they complain about under-investment? Is not it time that they got their house in order?

John Spellar: The new chairman of the SRA is looking fairly closely at the management of train operating companies across the network. We look forward to his strategic plan, which will be launched on 14 January.

Chris Grayling: The Government's 10-year plan for transport will depend heavily on the successful completion of the rail franchising process. Why is the process so delayed, and when is it likely to be completed?

John Spellar: The announcement on the franchising process will be made very soon. The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long, and I am sure that he will welcome the announcement when it is made.

David Clelland: Will the plans include proposals to help relieve congestion on the Gateshead western bypass? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government office of the north-east recently announced proposals that revived the prospect of a bypass to the bypass—a proposal rejected under the previous Government, after a huge protest from local people, MPs and the council? Millions of pounds of public money were wasted when properties that had been bought had to be sold back to the sellers, or sold on. Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter urgently, and make it clear that the proposal will not receive the Government's support?

John Spellar: I certainly undertake to look at the matter, and to take into account my hon. Friend's remarks, as well as the views of the local authorities involved, and of the local passenger transport executive.

Eric Pickles: To return to the railways part of the 10-year plan, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there are two principal lessons to be learned from Railtrack's interim profits, announced today? First, it is inconceivable that the chairman of Railtrack could have told him and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the company was insolvent. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has rightly pointed out, the level of investment in the railways has been £3 billion a year under Railtrack, while under British Rail it was just £750 million. Can the Minister give a better explanation than he gave my hon. Friend about where the bulk of the future investment will come from, given that it came from the private sector before? Will it involve a cut in railway investment or will there be a guarantee from the Treasury? Or, as is more likely, is the Government's indecisiveness still final?

John Spellar: It was a guarantee from the Treasury—or, rather, the Government—that Railtrack was seeking. The hon. Gentleman must explain why Railtrack was, as it has admitted, asking for relief from the Rail Regulator or, at another stage, saying that it might have wanted to go to the regulator, in both cases because it claimed that it needed extra funding. Although he is right to draw attention to the paper profit made by Railtrack and announced today, it is surprising that he did not also draw attention to the £2 billion extra in debt carried by the company during the past year. He must also explain why, if Railtrack believed that its position was so sound, it did not, even though it was present in court, contest the petition that we put and which the judge decided required a declaration of insolvency and for the company to be put into administration.

Railtrack

Jim Cunningham: What representations he has received from passengers and passenger organisations regarding his decision to put Railtrack into receivership.

Stephen Byers: I have met passenger representatives several times since the High Court granted the order placing Railtrack plc into administration. They have reacted positively to the Government's decision not to provide additional funding to Railtrack plc. They agree that Railtrack plc's role as network operator should be transferred as soon as possible to a robust successor company capable of delivering the quality of service that rail passengers need and have wanted for years.

Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the taxpayer is aware that from time to time Railtrack has come to the Government with a begging bowl? Does he also agree that rail passengers will be astounded to learn that in the first six months of this year, Railtrack made a larger profit than it did last year?

Stephen Byers: The information that has been disclosed today by Railtrack shows the difficulty that Railtrack plc had. Effectively, it was trying to serve two masters: it had the desire to meet the needs of shareholders as well as a responsibility to the travelling public. In the end, whenever there was a conflict between the demands of shareholders and the travelling public, Railtrack, as a publicly quoted company, always came down on the side of its shareholders. There is no surprise in that—that was its legal obligation, and the directors had no alternative. However, that highlights the difficulties and contradiction at the heart of Railtrack plc.
	There should be no surprise at the profits announced today. That does not affect the view that we took, endorsed by the High Court on 7 October, that Railtrack plc—the body in administration, not the separate company, Railtrack Group, which has declared profits today—should go into administration.

John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State tell us his estimated budget in advisory fees and capital injection to get a company limited by guarantee, a not-for-profit company, off the ground? It is about time the House was told what the budget is; I think that a very large sum will be needed for such a proposal.

Stephen Byers: We have made the position clear in terms of the financial commitment that we will give to ensure that the needs of the rail passengers are put first. I welcome the fact that the SRA is acting as sponsor for the bid team which is headed by Ian McAllister. That is good news, because it will ensure that a robust proposition is put to the administrator. The Conservative party would of course have done nothing.
	I was interested to note that, as a result of the current debate about the future of railways, an informative and thoughtful article was published in the Financial Times on 12 December. It made a clear statement:
	"An early return to the private sector is the best option for the traveller as well as for the taxpayer."
	That was written by the real shadow transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Does the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) support that approach?

Kelvin Hopkins: I was interested in my right hon. Friend's last answer. May I go on from that to suggest that we look at continental railway systems, which are much more successful than ours—indeed, light years ahead? Those systems are generally state owned, coherent and integrated with other forms of transport.

Stephen Byers: As a result of the decisive action that we took on Railtrack, a number of opportunities and options that were not previously available are now accessible. The approach adopted in some continental railway systems—where there is a far greater degree of integration than we see in the United Kingdom—is something on which we shall need to reflect. Ultimately, it will be for the administrator to make a recommendation for my approval in relation to the transfer of the company. I hope that the Tories will come off the fence at some stage, and will say—the hon. Member for Maidenhead now has an opportunity to do so—whether they will privatise Railtrack and put it back into the private sector, as recommended by her right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. Will she tell the House today?

Theresa May: Before the Secretary of State decided to put Railtrack into administration, did he ask the company for its expected interim results?

Stephen Byers: As the hon. Lady will know, we petitioned the High Court based on the information available to us. The most important point was that the company came to the Government asking for more money. That was the situation.

Theresa May: It is quite obvious from that reply that the answer to my question is no. The Secretary of State was preparing to go to court to put Railtrack into administration and he could not even be bothered to find out whether it was making a profit. Does he still think that a company with increased profits is one facing "financial meltdown"? It is now clear that the £1.7 billion deficit that he claims that the company faced was in fact an increase in private sector lending. Did not he realise that, far from being a deficit, that was money for investment in projects such as the west coast main line? Will he tell the House how much of that investment now has to be paid by the taxpayer? Will he answer the question: how much capital will the Government be injecting to set up the not- for-profit company that he wants to see taking over from Railtrack? With train delays up 45 per cent. since administration, with shareholders threatening to sue the Government, with Railtrack threatening to sue the Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has asked the questions. Now, she must have an answer.

Stephen Byers: Let us get some facts out into the open. Railtrack had a £1 billion credit facility on which the banks would not let it draw down. Why? Because they knew Railtrack's financial situation. A company that came to the Government with a begging bowl paid out £88 million in dividends to shareholders at the beginning of October. Our evidence to the High Court—of the £700 million deficit in December and a £1.7 billion deficit in March next year—was not challenged or contradicted by Railtrack. Railtrack's representatives were in court. Railtrack had counsel in court, but they sat like Trappist monks and did not say a word. Even more important, the company waived its right to have two days' notice of the petition. It could have delayed the proceedings until Wednesday of that week, but failed to do so. The company knew the situation; it knew its financial situation. Let us be clear on this point: the Tory party and Railtrack directors say that because I refused to bail them out in October—because I am refusing to give £1 billion of taxpayers' money—I am abusing my position. I have used my power as Secretary of State to put taxpayers and rail passengers first and will continue to do so.

Cyclists

Andrew MacKinlay: If he will make a statement on the level of accidents involving cyclists without lights on their bikes over the past five years.

David Jamieson: We do not record the number of accidents involving cyclists without lights. However, it is an offence to use a pedal cycle on the road without lights between sunset and sunrise, or in conditions of reduced visibility.

Andrew MacKinlay: I hope that, from now on, we will keep statistics on the injuries and deaths that occur where the lack of lights was a contributory factor to the accident. Does the Minister understand that, although riding without lights is an offence, it is not enforced by the police or other agencies? Will he consider taking an early legislative opportunity to create a civil offence, whereby a bike can be impounded and only returned to the owner on payment of a fixed-penalty fine to abate what must be the very considerable number of deaths caused by a lack of lights, as well as the trauma and anxiety caused to the diligent motorists who cannot see the offending cyclists? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) have a complaint?

Theresa May: No.

David Jamieson: I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), which he raises with his usual vigour. People who ride bicycles in the dark without lights put themselves and others, particularly pedestrians, at risk. He may be interested to know that, last year, there were 21,000 accidents involving cycles, although the trend is generally downwards. A fifth of those accidents occurred in the dark and 34 involved fatalities. I am sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion will be born in mind if a legislative opportunity arises. Information is not currently collected on whether cyclists involved in accidents have lights, but a review team is currently considering this issue, and I shall ensure that the important matter that he raises is drawn to the team's attention.

Julie Kirkbride: May I tell the Minister of a very sad case in my constituency, where a young man died this summer while delivering papers, when he was knocked over while cycling? Clearly, we send our condolences to his parents this Christmas, as they will feel the effects deeply. Will the Minister pay tribute to one of our local bobbies, PC Twentyman, who, since then, has tried to ensure that all young people have access to crash helmets while riding their bikes on their paper rounds? In the context of the review that the Minister has just announced, are the Government considering whether people should be required to wear helmets while riding bicycles on the public highway?

David Jamieson: First, I ask the hon. Lady to convey my condolences to her constituents—I know how terrible such events are. She will be aware that schools run many programmes to give such advice to children, and I hope that such events will spur the local schools to refresh that advice. I hope also that the newsagents and others who employ children—particularly, those who work in the early mornings and in the evenings in the dark—will also be mindful as to whether those children wear helmets, carry reflective bags or have the appropriate lights on their bicycles. We have certainly considered making helmets compulsory—the issue has been mentioned to us a number of times—but people, particularly parents, need to be mindful of the dangers to children and of the fact that helmets can assist considerably in lessening that risk. I am sure that the hon. Lady's suggestion will be borne in mind if a legislative opportunity arises.

Local Government Reform

Clive Soley: If he will make a statement on the reform of local government.

Stephen Byers: Last Tuesday, the Government published their White Paper on local government, setting out a radical programme of reform and modernisation based on new freedoms and greater accountability. In addition, I can inform the House that, in the light of representations received from some hon. Members and some shire districts as part of the on-going consultation on the 2002–03 financial settlement, I shall introduce an alternative baseline for 2001–02, which, in effect, adjusts only for the transfers of service for which shire districts are responsible. In order to guarantee a minimum 2.3 per cent. increase for shire districts, I will give each district whichever increase is greater—2.3 per cent. on the original baseline, or 2.3 per cent. on the alternative. I believe that that will meet their concerns.

Clive Soley: I very much welcome that reply, but I urge my right hon. Friend to keep going with the reform of local government. Many people in all parties want local authorities to be returned the power and responsibility that was whittled away in the 1980s and 1990s. We must return that power and responsibility to locally elected people. As we do that, will my right hon. Friend consider giving more financial power to local authorities which must, at the same time, be held responsible by the electorate? I know of no better way of ensuring greater interest in local democracy than by linking financial responsibility with accountability to the electorate for how the money is spent.

Stephen Byers: I strongly endorse the principles that underpin my hon. Friend's comments. That is why we have always stressed that the White Paper that we published last week is about modernisation and reform. It is also, however, about greater freedoms based on accountability, which must be at the heart of effective local government.
	When we published the White Paper, I tried to make it clear that it represented a change in direction in terms of central and local government relations. The interface between local authorities and central Government is never easy, but we must accept that we in this place and the Government do not have to control everything and that we have to believe in the strengths of local democracy. That is why we want to give new freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities. The White Paper outlines how we can do precisely that.

Mark Prisk: In the Secretary of State's attempt to decentralise power from the centre to local government, will he guarantee that the future of county councils is safe in his hands?

Stephen Byers: Yes. The Government have no intention of proposing the imposition of the abolition of county councils. I can give that assurance.

Anne Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals for the reform of local government finance have been welcomed in my constituency? They are certainly more welcome than the actions of the Conservative Government in the 1990s which led to an unfair and inequitable system of distribution. However, will he ensure that when he implements the proposals, the transitional arrangements do not adversely affect those councils—particularly my county council—that are at the bottom of the heap for funding? I am sure that he will agree that we do not want to wait another 10 years to have an equitable distribution of the funding.

Stephen Byers: I am aware that Cambridgeshire county council has, for a long period, argued for a change in the regime by which we allocate funding to local authorities. It will welcome the fact that we will abolish the standard spending assessment that bears no relation whatever to the levels of services provided or to the needs of a local authority. It was, of course, introduced by the Conservatives when they were in government and it affects Conservative-controlled county councils and many other local authorities.
	We shall see the end of the standard spending assessment regime and, instead, we shall have a system of distribution based on needs and the levels of services provided. There will be dramatic changes as a result of that, and it is only right and proper that we have a system of transitional arrangements to make sure that we do not adversely affect the provision of services and to ensure that those areas, such as Cambridgeshire, that may benefit will receive the benefit of the changes as soon as we can possibly introduce them.

Malcolm Moss: Last year, three quarters of local authorities spent above their SSA for social services, with a total overspend of £183 million. Based on this year's financial settlement, local government bodies are already saying that the overspend could be nearly £1 billion. No amount of tinkering with local government reform will substitute for the proper funding of local authorities to provide the necessary level of social services to the old, vulnerable and weakest in their societies. Does not the Secretary of State have any shame that his Government are presiding over the near collapse of social services, over bed blocking on a massively debilitating scale and over a cruel and insulting level of services for elderly people?

Stephen Byers: Well, this is the party that introduced the poll tax into local government and that decimated council services year after year by cutting spending. This is the party that, when electors voted for Labour councils, abolished those councils because it could not tolerate real local democracy.
	The reality is that this settlement gives 6.4 per cent. to personal social services, which is way above the rate of inflation. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is providing an extra £200 million specifically to deal with bed blocking in the national health service, from which many local authorities will benefit. That is what the Government are doing, and we will continue to deliver good services, whether it be for the elderly or children at risk who know that for too long they have been denied the level of service that should be theirs. This Government are delivering. The people out there know that we believe in local democracy and local government, which is why we are providing the resources to ensure that services are delivered at last to those in greatest need.

Local Government Allocation (Deprivation)

Richard Burden: What assessment his Department has made of the need for a deprivation factor in the formula used to distribute central Government finance to local authorities.

Nick Raynsford: Deprivation indicators are included in a number of the standard spending assessment formulae used to distribute grant to local authorities. For example, the education formula includes indicators of lone parents and income support. However, we do not believe that the SSA system adequately reflects needs. That is why we introduced the neighbourhood renewal fund, from which Birmingham has received £11 million in the current financial year. It is also why we are currently reviewing the grant distribution formulae, with a view to creating a fairer system in which, among other considerations, deprivation is properly reflected. The work is still in its early stages, and we have not yet reached any conclusions.

Richard Burden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. An accurate reflection of deprivation is obviously important to ensure that local authorities receive a fair allocation. However, does he agree that all too often the problem is that deprivation is assessed across broad areas, which averages those areas out? Pockets of deprivation may exist alongside areas of relative affluence and often do not get the attention that they deserve. Does he also agree that there are two solutions? The first is for the formula to reflect local circumstances much more exactly. The second is to ensure that local authorities, especially larger bodies, devolve their management so that local circumstances are adequately reflected. Further, does he welcome the moves that Birmingham recently made to achieve such devolution?

Nick Raynsford: There are three points to make. The first is that our review of the grant distribution formulae for local government should help to ensure that we pay proper regard to deprivation as part of the general process of allocating funds to local government. Secondly, our neighbourhood renewal programme has been geared towards ensuring that additional funding helps the most deprived areas. My hon. Friend knows that Birmingham qualifies as one of the 88 authorities that are in that programme. The third point is that it is important to consider initiatives that help to establish more effective responses to particular communities. In proposing a framework to devolve more say to local areas, Birmingham city council is developing an interesting initiative that will be considered by many other authorities. I suspect that a great deal will be learned from that valuable experiment.

Anne McIntosh: As part of the review, will the Minister consider pockets of rural deprivation, in particular in those parts of North Yorkshire that have suffered from a dreadful downturn in the agricultural economy? Does he accept that there is social exclusion in areas that do not have an advanced network of public transport, and that factors of rurality and sparsity of population should be taken into consideration?

Nick Raynsford: The answer is yes: there are pockets of deprivation in rural as well as urban areas, and factors that lead to deprivation and social exclusion apply in rural areas, although they are different from those in urban areas. Our review will attempt to take a fair view across the country and take account of the factors that apply to rural areas as well as those that are specific to urban areas.

Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the taskforce report on the disturbances in Burnley in June this year identified that deprivation and housing were the two biggest factors? Does he recognise that the report also states that although Burnley has inner-city problems, it is a shire district council and does not have the finance to tackle the problems that it faces, and that it needs Government help urgently?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the particular needs of his community in Burnley. He will know that, having visited the area a year or so ago, I am familiar with the problems that he mentioned, including the housing problems. He may be interested to know that I have just come from a round table discussion at the Local Government Association which looked specifically at the lessons to be learned from the reports on the disturbances in Burnley and other cities. We take those reports very seriously indeed, and we want to ensure that we learn from the conclusions, to help authorities such as Burnley respond more effectively to the serious challenges that they face.

Nicholas Winterton: On the subject of housing, which featured in the Minister's reply, does he accept that some Government policies are making it very difficult for those on low incomes to rent property, particularly in affluent areas that traditionally have high rents? Even in affluent areas, there are people on low incomes. Does he agree that there is a problem, and will he turn his considerable energies to doing something about it?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that I am now responsible for local government, and my noble Friend Lord Falconer is responsible for housing, along with the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Having said that, let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we take very seriously issues of need, and the Government have been putting substantial additional investment into the provision of affordable housing in many areas, including his own. We are committed to expanding opportunities for people who currently have difficulty in securing housing, after years and years in which the housing budget was remorselessly cut by the party that he represents in the House.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does the Minister accept that the experience of deprivation in a number of areas is not properly reflected in their financing? For example, Slough is in the top 10 areas in the country for deaths from heart attacks and in the top 20 local authorities for ethnic minority populations, but that is not reflected in the resources that we get. Can he please consider those authorities where there seems to be a mismatch between need and resource, to see whether the sums are being done correctly?

Nick Raynsford: I have to tell my hon. Friend that the perception of almost every Member of the House is that the current funding system does not adequately meet the needs of their local authority. We therefore face an obvious difficulty in conducting reform because it will not be possible to satisfy everyone. We want to review the arrangements to ensure that the formulae reflect, as accurately and comprehensibly as possible, the needs that most people would want them to reflect.
	There is a tension, however, between fairness and simplicity, and if one tries to take into account too many factors in order to create a fairer system, there is a risk that one will end up with a system that is opaque and incomprehensible, and no one will know how it works. That is the situation that we got into with the system that we inherited from the Conservative party. We know that we can do better, and our review will seek to improve on that system.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Despite what the Secretary of State said a moment ago, does not last week's announcement on the change in the local government finance formula amount to a huge centralisation by Government over local authorities? Or is it a new departmental policy of endorsing failure—a reward for the failure to run a proper railways policy, a reward for the failure to sort out the muddle in the tube and, above all, a reward for failing Labour councils? Or is it just the Secretary of State himself who is failing?

Nick Raynsford: I have to say that the test of the electorate shows that the Conservative party has failed—twice running. Last week, we announced that we are giving local government a generous settlement, with real-terms increases, guaranteeing increases between two and three times the rate of inflation for all education and social services authorities, and with a minimum 2.3 per cent. increase for all authorities.
	That should be contrasted with the experience of the years in which the Conservative party was in government, when local government faced real-terms cuts in its allocations year after year. There has been a sea change under this Government—we are offering freedom, more money, greater responsibility and greater opportunity to local government, and local government knows which party has its interests at heart.

Speed Cameras

David Crausby: If he will make a statement on his policy on traffic speed cameras.

John Spellar: Correctly deployed speed enforcement cameras reduce road deaths and serious injuries. A successful trial of a new funding system for cameras is now available nationally. To improve effectiveness and fairness, I announced on 3 December new conspicuity, visibility and signing rules for cameras placed in areas that are participating in the netting-off scheme.

David Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he say something about the public perception that the siting of those cameras is far too often motivated by revenue collection rather than road safety?

John Spellar: That is precisely why we announced that we want much greater visibility of those cameras and why we suggested that in most cases yellow is the preferred colour for them. We require them not to be sited behind trees or signs because the purpose is not to collect revenue but to change behaviour to deal with accident-prone stretches of road. In areas with cameras we are already seeing success; we now want to roll the programme out across the country and collect fewer fines because people are reducing their speed, thus reducing the number of accidents.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that there is a particular problem with drivers in 20 mph-zones? Why are police forces throughout the country extremely reluctant to use speed cameras in those zones?

John Spellar: That is something that the hon. Gentleman needs to take up with the Home Office, which is responsible for police forces. We are creating a system whereby they can put in cameras, then apply for money to pay for them so that they can become operational. With that money come the visibility conditions that I have described. He needs to take the matter up with his local police authority and chief constable. At the same time, it would be useful if the Norfolk constabulary repainted its cameras in a more visible colour; I think that he is already dealing with that.

Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that traffic regulations are meant to be complied with—especially speed limits, which save lives? Will he try to make sure that firm guidelines and opportunities are offered to local authorities and police so that cameras are used to ensure compliance with traffic regulations like bus lanes, bus gates and public transport priorities, which the police are often reluctant to enforce at all?

John Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend. The schemes that I have described are based on local authorities and police working in partnership. We are also piloting schemes in the London area, looking at the enforcement of bus lanes. They must be applied with discretion because, obviously, a vehicle parked in them at the height of the rush hour is far more of a problem than one whose driver has temporarily stopped to pop to the shops mid-morning. Discretion is therefore needed so that traffic can flow but motorists are not persecuted.
	My hon. Friend is right; we need to look across the board. Although we have the safest roads in Europe, along with Sweden, we can still do better; we are already making progress and intend to make more.

Angus Robertson: The Minister will be aware that officials have argued that speed cameras cannot effectively differentiate between Scottish European number plates. Will he confirm that that and all other arguments against Scottish European number plates are bogus, and that the Government are about to reverse their decision on them? Will he take the opportunity to apologise to Scottish motorists for threatening fines for displaying our national flag on our national number plates?

John Spellar: The matter has been raised with me by Members of Parliament from all parts of the United Kingdom. We have been reviewing it and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Home Office local campaigns such as those in Mawdesley and other areas in the Chorley constituency, where residents want speed cameras to be introduced to reduce speed, and use his good offices to ensure that those voices are listened to?

John Spellar: Such representations should be addressed to the local partnership between the local authority—which, in my hon. Friend's case, I assume is Lancashire county council—and the Lancashire police. I hope that his representations will be taken seriously in the interests of his constituents, whom he always represents so assiduously.

Rail Safety

John Barrett: If he will make a statement on progress towards the implementation of recommendations made on rail safety by recent reports from the Health and Safety Commission.

Alan Whitehead: The Government have asked the Health and Safety Commission, the regulator for rail safety, to ensure that action is taken on all the recommendations from the four recent public inquiry reports. The commission's progress reports on recommendations from the Southall and the train protection inquiries are in the House Library. Progress reports on the two Cullen reports are due in the spring.

John Barrett: Following the Southall train crash and Professor Uff's subsequent recommendations, can the Minister confirm that by February this year, 81 of the recommendations should have been implemented, yet only 15 had been? By February next year, all 93 recommendations should have been implemented. Does he expect that they will be, and if not, why not?

Alan Whitehead: Through the offices of the Health and Safety Executive, the Government are ensuring that the reports that have been produced on rail safety are implemented progressively. It is anticipated that those reports will be fully implemented in the not-too-distant future.

Don Foster: Does the Minister recall that following the Paddington rail crash and Lord Cullen's first report, the Secretary of State specifically required the Health and Safety Executive to produce a report on implementation of those recommendations within six months—that is, by tomorrow? Can the Minister explain why that report has been delayed until spring next year? As 41 of the 89 recommendations were due to be implemented by tomorrow, including those on improved signal arrangements in the Paddington area and improved signal siting, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether they have been implemented, and if not, why not?

Alan Whitehead: I will look at the details of the hon. Gentleman's question and write to him. He should be aware that the progress reports on recommendations from all the inquiries are either in the Library now or will be made available in the early spring next year. Those reports will demonstrate, I understand, that good progress has been made in implementing all the recommendations of those inquiries.

Hugh Bayley: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the four years prior to the privatisation of Railtrack, the number of passenger deaths on the railways decreased from 30 in 1991-92 to eight the year before privatisation, and that in the four years after privatisation, the number rose from eight to 43 in the latest year for which we have figures? Despite the claim from the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), that Railtrack made the railways safer, does my hon. Friend agree that the figures show a worrying trend? Will he tell the House what the new regime for managing the track and signalling will do to improve rail safety and reduce fatalities?

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend makes an important point concerning some of the perceived consequences of Railtrack privatisation, but he should be aware that rail remains one of the safest forms of transport—seven times safer than travelling by car. The Government are working hard with Railtrack plc and the administrator to ensure that safety on the railways is maintained. A formal direction was issued to Railtrack plc on 8 October for it to bring forward a new railway safety case after administration. That has recently been accepted by HSE. HSE has doubled the number of railway inspectors actively inspecting railway safety since 1999, and intends to double the number of inspectors again by next year.

John Taylor: Is the Minister still actively in favour of road to rail in the overall context of safety? If so, will he comment on the proposal to construct a rail link between Land Rover in my constituency and the west coast main line?

Alan Whitehead: The proposal is actively being considered, but obviously the question of ensuring that transport can move around the country in the most efficient way in terms of industrial productivity and safety is a very important part of any overall transport plan.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend will be aware that the HSE does a fantastic job on rail safety, but is he satisfied that it has a sufficient number of trained engineers and inspectors? Is he even more satisfied that it has a sufficiently large budget to perform its necessary functions?

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend is aware that a review was undertaken by the HSE—it was supported strongly by the Government—to look at the number of rail safety inspectors that it employed. She will be aware that, since 1999, the HSE has doubled the number of railway inspectors—there are currently just over 100—and that the proposal is to increase that number to 200 by next year. She will also be aware that the HSE is undertaking to do that within the budget limits set under the spending review for the last period. If it considers that it should receive an increase for this particular work, it is up to it to make a case for that. It is undertaking this increased safety regulation within the resources that it currently has, and, in my view, it is doing so very effectively.

Rail Regulation

Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the roles of the Strategic Rail Authority and the Rail Regulator.

John Spellar: The purposes and functions of the Strategic Rail Authority are set out in the Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000. The Rail Regulator's functions and duties are set out in a number of Acts, including the Railways Act 1993, the Transport Act 2000, the Competition Act 1998 and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for that illuminating reply, but is he aware that passengers are more concerned about whether their trains are going to arrive on time and whether they can travel in reasonable comfort? Is either of the bodies continuing to collect information about time keeping, in which there has been a serious decline since October this year? Will the Minister publish regular reports on time keeping in the rail network?

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman recognises a problem that is part of the great difficulties of the system that we inherited from the Government whom he supported. The Opposition should recognise that it is that fundamentally flawed model that has created the difficulties. Notwithstanding that, there is, obviously, still a need to run the system. He will be extremely pleased with the progress that the new chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, Richard Bowker, has already made in starting to set new leadership in the industry. He will shortly be announcing the franchising proposals and will announce next month his strategic plan for the industry. That is the way in which leadership should be taken forward, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Michael Jack: In a recent parliamentary answer, the Minister confirmed to me that he was still in discussions with Railtrack about matters concerning the completion of phase 1 of the west coast main line modernisation; no mention was made of phase 2. What information has he provided to the Strategic Rail Authority about the matters that are outstanding, how will that outstanding work be financed and when will the project be completed?

John Spellar: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the problems with the west coast main line, which demonstrate exactly the reason why we had to take action with regard to Railtrack. It priced the project at £2.3 billion, but it was then going to cost £7 billion and rising. I was absolutely astonished that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) tried to brush that to one side as an insignificant item in its accounts. The matter requires discussion between the Department, the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack and Virgin Rail, precisely so that they can work their way out of the horrendous difficulties that the abject failure of Railtrack has placed with the authority, the Government and the train operating company. As he would expect, we are involved in very active discussions on the matter, because of the complexities and difficulties that we were left with.

Area Cost Adjustment

Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the working of the area cost adjustment.

Alan Whitehead: The area cost adjustment consists of two elements: a labour cost adjustment and a rates cost adjustment. The labour cost adjustment is by far the most important. It is based on comparisons of average wages in London, the south-east and the rest of the country. Average wages are derived from the new earnings survey for a range of occupations considered to be relevant to local authority employment.
	The rates cost adjustment is based on rateable values per square metre for commercial office space. There is a slightly different approach for schools buildings.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister know that the area cost adjustment costs Gloucestershire £4.648 million a year? I understand that the Government are to review the area cost adjustment. Does he agree that it is wrong for Gloucestershire to lose out by such an amount? Does he further agree that the basis for the formula—that it costs more to run services in, for example, neighbouring Oxfordshire—is wrong, and will he therefore guarantee that Gloucestershire will not lose out unfairly after the review?

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the current ACA methodology was developed under the Conservatives in the early 1990s. If there are serious problems, perhaps he should consult the history books to ascertain how they arose. At the time, Conservative Ministers did not believe that there was strong evidence to show that average wages varied much between authorities outside the south-east. That may have changed by now, and the Government are therefore reviewing the matter.
	Various options, including an ACA that is more specifically associated with individual authorities, are being discussed with the Local Government Association. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know how openly the review is being conducted, he can look at the LGA website, where the different options are displayed.

Points of Order

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. I want to clarify a point about this afternoon's debate on the motion on the facilities of the House.
	Some years ago, I referred to Mr. Gerry Adams as the dishonourable Member for Belfast, West. The then Deputy Speaker ruled that such unparliamentary language was permissible because our rules protect only Members who have taken the Oath or affirmed. Will you confirm that the ruling continues to apply? Although I accept the need for moderate language in an emotional debate such as this afternoon's, is it still in order to describe someone who has not affirmed or taken the Oath as a supporter of terrorism or to refer to any other unpleasant facts that the evidence suggests?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order, which gives me the opportunity to remind the House of the wise words of "Erskine May":
	"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
	I recognise that strong feelings exist on the issue, but let us conduct our debate in a civilised manner. The Chair will not tolerate unparliamentary language or behaviour.

BILL PRESENTED

Justice (Northern Ireland)

Jim Fitzpatrick presented a Bill to make provision about the judiciary in Northern Ireland and to amend section 6 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876; to make provision about the law officers and other legal officers and the courts in Northern Ireland; to establish a Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, a Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland and a Northern Ireland Law Commission; to amend the law of youth justice in Northern Ireland; to make provision for making available to victims of crime information about the release of offenders in Northern Ireland; to make provision about community safety in Northern Ireland; to amend the law of legal aid in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 75].

Elections (Entitlement to Vote At Age 16)

Matthew Green: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to provide that a person aged 16 years or over is entitled to vote in a parliamentary or local government election.
	The Bill is an attempt to use common sense to tackle civil rights and the health of our democracy head on. I am sure that no hon. Members consider marriage, a full-time job or having children to be lesser responsibilities than voting, yet that is what successive Governments have effectively told us by failing to tackle the voting rights of 16 to 18-year-olds. We expect young people who work to contribute taxes, so why cannot they have a say in who spends their hard-earned money at local and national level? We treat them like adults one minute and children the next.
	Let us be consistent. If we expect young people to be accountable and responsible, we must afford them responsibilities and respect. Young people under 18 can die fighting for their country, so is it not madness that they cannot elect the very people who send them to war? Respect and equality are at the heart of the Bill: giving 16-year-olds the vote is a fundamental right.
	Why bother, some may ask? After all, we have all heard in the news about the increasing apathy of young people towards politics. I am sure that some will say, "What is the point of giving young people the vote if they are not going to use it?" Giving young people the chance to vote can only benefit society. It will empower young people and give them a greater sense of responsibility in society. We will make politics more relevant to the young and encourage personal responsibility by giving them a stake in the future.
	We cannot deny someone their rights simply because they choose not to use them. If we played that game, we would have to forfeit the rights of almost half the population in the UK, given the results of the last general election—some democracy we would have if we did that.
	Unlike some adults, young people are interested. A research poll carried out following the general election for Charter 88 and the YMCA came up with some surprising results. It seems that young people are still interested and have faith in the political system. Some 62 per cent. believe that voting is an important way to defend the public interest, and 61 per cent. believe it makes the Government responsible for their actions. More than half believe that voting is instrumental in getting the right people elected who will represent their views.
	We cannot take young people for granted. As the research also shows, if we fail to nurture young people's interest in politics, we lose it. As many as 47 per cent. of 16 to 17-year-olds said that voting could have a lot of influence; that dropped to only 35 per cent. once they reached their early twenties—a 12 per cent. drop in just five years. How can we tell young people that we are interested in their views, yet at the same time not let them have the vote? Young people are judged old enough to start a family and contribute taxes. We should now allow them to elect the Government who will spend their taxes and provide the hospitals in which their children are born.
	The change has the support of the Electoral Reform Society, the British Youth Council, the YMCA, the National Youth Agency, the UK Youth Parliament, the Children's Rights Alliance, the National Black Youth Forum and the Care Leavers Alliance.
	The last time that the voting age was lowered was under the Representation of the People Act 1969, which came into force for the 1970 general election and allowed 18 to 20-year-olds to vote for the first time. I understand that a total of 81 Members of this House had the opportunity to vote that year, which they would not have had otherwise. Without giving anyone's exact age away, I shall mention a few of them, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I understand that he insisted on using his vote, with his father driving him from Hereford, where they had moved to, to north Wales to make sure that his vote counted at the age of 19.
	The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), were also able to vote for the first time in 1970 thanks to the lowering of the voting age. They could not have done so if the voting age had not been lowered the previous year.
	We all know how quickly youthful passion and idealism can fall victim to cynicism and apathy. How many more Ministers, Chancellors or perhaps even Prime Ministers will be encouraged if we foster young people's interest in politics early on?
	The citizenship curriculum that is being made compulsory in September 2002 will teach all young people about the political process: 16 and 17-year-olds will be better informed about politics than ever before, and probably better informed than most adults. Young people are the future. We want to encourage their interest in the community in which we live as well as the world around them. We must motivate young people before they lose interest, and there is only one way to do that—give them the vote.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Matthew Green, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Jane Griffiths, Angus Robertson, Lembit Öpik, Dr. John Pugh, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Paul Marsden, Mr. Alan Reid, Adam Price and Mr. Roger Williams.

Elections (Entitlement to Vote At Age 16)

Matthew Green accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to provide that a person aged 16 years or over is entitled to vote in a parliamentary or local government election: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 76].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Taxes

That the Variation of Stamp Duties Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3746), dated 27th November 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.— [Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Local Government Finance

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No.89) (HC415) on Children's Services (Quality Protects) Special Grants for 2000–01 and 2001–02, which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	Question agreed to.

SPEAKER'S STATEMENT

Mr. Speaker: Before we come to the main motion, I have a short statement to make about the debate on facilities of the House. A list of amendments that have been selected has been circulated. I propose to allow a broad general debate on the motion, at the end of which there will be an opportunity for amendments to be proposed formally and divided on before the Question is put on the main motion.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
	Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 2001

Facilities of the House

Robin Cook: I beg to move,
	That, with effect from 8th January 2002, those Members who have chosen not to take their seats and thus do not qualify to participate in the proceedings in Parliament may use the facilities within the precincts of the House and the services of departments of the House, and may claim support for their costs as set out in the Resolution of 5th July 2001, relating to Members' Allowances, Insurance &c., and the allowances relating to travel within the United Kingdom for Members, their families and staff.
	The motion relates to the facilities of the House, but I fully recognise that most Members come to the debate with views mainly shaped by events in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who I understand will respond to my opening remarks, informed us this morning, courtesy of The Daily Telegraph, of the views that he brings to the debate. He said that the Conservative party is withdrawing bipartisan support in Northern Ireland over this issue. [Interruption.] I observe that he has the support of the Conservative party.
	It is of course the right of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to end the principle of a bipartisan approach in Northern Ireland. We gave them bipartisan support on Northern Ireland when they were in government.

Quentin Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that, in opposition, the Labour party voted for the Prevention of Terrorism Act?

Robin Cook: No, I am not saying that. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, that Act raised a number of concerns about the treatment of people on the mainland who were not necessarily connected with the IRA. I am sure that he will also acknowledge, as he is a fair-minded gentleman, that we gave the Government full support for every effort that they made to get a peace process going in Northern Ireland.
	I am not surprised that, in opposition, the hon. Gentleman does not feel bound to give us the support that we gave his party when it was in government. What does surprise me is that he has ended bipartisanship over access to the House of Commons. Never once in their 18 years of government did the Conservatives withdraw the right of access from Sinn Fein. Throughout the decade in which Gerry Adams was an elected Member of Parliament, a Conservative Government left him the right to enter the precincts and the right of access to any services provided. Indeed, in every month of his membership Gerry Adams was mailed his allocation of tickets to the Public Gallery, and occasionally used them. Not once in those years did the hon. Gentleman try to stop him.
	I assume from the bewildered look on the hon. Gentleman's face that he was totally unaware of his Government's policy throughout that decade in which Gerry Adams was entitled to come into this place.
	At that time, the right of access to Westminster for Members who had not taken the Oath was of long standing. For more than 100 years, there was nothing to bar from the precincts a Member who had refused to take the Oath. Indeed, in the 19th century, Members who had not taken the Oath on religious grounds attended Westminster regularly, and even listened to debates from beyond the Bar of the House.
	It will be interesting to discover, when the hon. Gentleman makes his speech, whether he can clarify whether he was aware that that was the position throughout the time for which his Government were in office. He supported that Government, but he is not prepared to support us when we restore the position that existed when they were in power.
	Not until a ruling by Madam Speaker Boothroyd after the 1997 general election was access to the precincts and the services of any of the Departments of the House withdrawn from Members who did not take the Oath. At that time, the IRA had repudiated its ceasefire and the peace process had foundered. In those circumstances, the ruling was understandable. Since then, however, we have witnessed historic developments in Northern Ireland. Three years ago, the Good Friday agreement committed the parties to it to pursue their different perspectives through politics and not through violence. Two years ago, power was devolved to an Assembly elected by the people of Northern Ireland.
	It was against the background of those developments that in January 2000 the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), wrote to the leaders of all political parties in Northern Ireland proposing that Sinn Fein MPs be granted access to Westminster and the ability to claim constituency allowances. At the same time, the Prime Minister consulted the leaders of the Opposition parties. In the event, the Government decided that the time was not right, as further progress was required on the peace process.
	We have now had that further progress. After a difficult few months, the existence of the Northern Ireland Assembly has been stabilised. General de Chastelain has confirmed that he has witnessed the first ever act of decommissioning by the republican movement in its history. He described it as significant, and he has confirmed that the material included arms, ammunition and explosives.

David Burnside: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard what was done in my constituency yesterday, on behalf of Sinn Fein, as evidence of progress in the peace process in support of the police? Posters were put up reading "Don't Join RUC/PSNI"—"PSNI" stands for "Police Service of Northern Ireland"—and listing "plastic bullets", "shoot to kill", "abuse of human rights", "sectarian intimidation", "collusion", "obstruction of enquiries" and "torturers". Does that constitute progress in support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the peace process?

Robin Cook: What I said to the House, and what I stand by, was that there had been progress in the peace process. As I pointed out, part of that progress is represented by the fact that we have an elected Northern Ireland Assembly in which 18 members of Sinn Fein sit, and in which the hon. Gentleman's party participates. His party has sat in 2,000 committee meetings with members of Sinn Fein in Belfast. I think that he should explain why he is willing to take part in 2,000 committee meetings in Belfast, but will not even allow Sinn Fein Members access to the Travel Office or the Vote Office here.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Robin Cook: I give way to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).

John Gummer: Surely the right hon. Gentleman understands that those who are engaged in the committee meetings in Belfast have agreed the same terms under which committee meetings take place, whereas he is suggesting that there shall be a special kind of Member of Parliament who shall take what he wants and not what he does not want. Those of us who do not take the Unionist Whip are for the first time driven into a position of saying that this House must insist that Members of Parliament either take the whole thing or nothing at all.

Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Good Friday agreement applies only to parties in Northern Ireland. It does not. The British Government are also a party to that agreement. He must explain why it is permissible for members of Sinn Fein to take a full part in the democratic process of Northern Ireland, to attend the Assembly and to sit in the Executive Committee, but not to have access even to the precincts of Westminster. That seems a double standard, which would not be welcome in Northern Ireland.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Robin Cook: If hon. Members will allow me, I will return to my speech.

Kate Hoey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Robin Cook: I will.

Kate Hoey: Can the Leader of the House point out exactly which page and paragraph of the Belfast agreement talk about giving Sinn Fein Members who had not taken the Oath entry to the House of Commons?

Robin Cook: The Good Friday agreement commits us to a parity of esteem for both traditions in Northern Ireland. It sets us out on a process. If my hon. Friend wants that process to succeed, she must recognise that it will involve different steps along the way, whether or not they are specifically written down in the document of three years ago.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Robin Cook: I will continue with my speech.
	All four of the Sinn Fein Members elected to the House are full Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. They regularly attend that body without any problems of security in the Assembly. There is no logic in saying to them that as a result of the peace process, to which we are party, they can attend, speak and vote in Belfast, but in Westminster they cannot get past the door.
	One of their number, Martin McGuinness, is the Minister of Education in Northern Ireland. He has a pledge of office, which committed him to using only democratic, non-violent means. He sits in the Executive Committee with representatives of other parties, including the Unionists. He not uncommonly meets my colleagues in the United Kingdom Government. The House has initiated a peace process that involves him and his colleagues in the peaceful administration of public services in Northern Ireland. The question now is whether the House is willing to play its part in engaging Sinn Fein in political activity.

David Wilshire: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about Martin McGuinness committing himself to purely democratic means, presumably the right hon. Gentleman will accept the amendments tabled today to require such an undertaking from those four people before they are allowed in here.

Robin Cook: The position that I am putting before the House, which is clear within the motion, is that those Members who have not taken the Oath should be entitled to access to the precincts, in the same way as they were before 1997 and before progress had not been made on the peace process.

Nigel Waterson: Can the right hon. Gentleman try to explain to my constituents in Eastbourne, who saw one of their previous MPs murdered by the IRA, why we are now proposing to give the benefits, privileges and facilities of this place to some of the people responsible for his murder?

Robin Cook: Ian Gow was tragically and appallingly murdered during the year in which Gerry Adams was a Member of this House and had precisely the access to the precincts for which the motion provides. The whole point of the peace process is to prevent future murders of that kind and to ensure that we proceed by political activity, not by violent confrontation. I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman imagines that we can draw Sinn Fein into political activity if he will not even allow it anywhere near Westminster.

Simon Hughes: The Leader of the House referred to the pledge of office that people have to take to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and there are similar new pledges in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Will he help the House by saying whether, as part of his welcome modernisation programme, it is in his mind that we should amend the law on the Oath, which not only is of interest to people elected from Northern Ireland, but would be widely welcomed in many parts of the House and would facilitate many people living with their consciences as well as serving their constituents?

Robin Cook: If the hon. Gentleman and any other substantial body of opinion in the House wish to raise the question of the Oath that Members take, that is a matter that we can explore at another time.

Andrew MacKinlay: A majority does.

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having his finger on the pulse and his assurance on that point, but at present I do not anticipate that giving a commitment to changing the Oath would assist me in the present debate. As I was saying, the peace process is a process, not a single event. A process requires parallel progress on both sides.

Andrew MacKay: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Robin Cook: No, I will not.
	Amendment (q) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition would prevent any part of this motion from being implemented until all of the decommissioning has been completed. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) confirms that point.

Andrew MacKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on the specific point of decommissioning?

Robin Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman lets me get a word in edgeways, I will talk about decommissioning. Both sides of the Chamber want to secure more decommissioning and want it to continue until it is completed. There is no difference between us about the need for further decommissioning by the IRA, but we are more likely to secure further decommissioning if we demonstrate that we are willing to maintain momentum on our side. I would ask all of those in the House who want more decommissioning, including the right hon. Gentleman, whether they really believe that they would make it more likely by voting down this motion tonight. I will happily hear the right hon. Gentleman's answer now.

Andrew MacKay: The answer to the question is simply that the very limited decommissioning that we have had so far resulted entirely from our taking a strong stance, and not from appeasing in the way that the Leader of the House is today. He attempts to pray in aid the limited amount of decommissioning as the reason for this dreadful motion. Will he remind the House just what the terms of the Belfast agreement were on decommissioning, and will he tell us when all decommissioning was supposed to have been completed?

Robin Cook: The Belfast agreement committed all parties to use their best endeavours and the right hon. Gentleman is right that the original timeframe provided was two years. He is also right that it is only very recently that we have received what General de Chastelain—whose judgment I trust possibly more than that of the right hon. Gentleman—described as a significant event. I find it strange that he should say that that happened when we played tough and stood our ground, because I do not remember him saying before the October act of decommissioning that the Government deserved praise for standing firm and refusing concessions. We secured decommissioning because we have a peace process in being, and we will secure further progress only if we keep that process alive.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Robin Cook: I wish to make some progress.
	The step that the House is being asked to take is a limited one. It will restore access to the precincts and Commons services that existed before the election in May 1997. It will not confer any right to take part in proceedings or to vote. It will not provide a salary or pension for Sinn Fein Members. It will not provide any Short money for Sinn Fein as a party. [Interruption.] Yes, it will extend the entitlement to constituency allowances to Sinn Fein Members on the same basis as any other elected Member. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I said last week, this is a sensitive matter, but it does not help when hon. Gentlemen shout across the Chamber.

Alan Duncan: rose—

Robin Cook: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Alan Duncan: The only person who could possibly have claimed allowances in the past was Gerry Adams, because the others who did not take their seats were disqualified. He did not claim. Since then, the allowances have dramatically increased from near zero to about £100,000. In addition, there is a legislative Assembly in a devolved Ulster, whose Members also get about £50,000. Given that dramatic change, how can the Leader of the House argue that his motion today is a return to the status quo ante?

Robin Cook: In respect of the access to the precincts and services, it is precisely that. [Interruption.] If I may say so, and if the hon. Gentleman is listening, that is precisely what I said and have just conceded. In respect of the allowances, the motion introduces a new situation.

Alan Duncan: New?

Robin Cook: Yes, it is new. I have never sought to disguise that. It will provide constituency allowances to the four Sinn Fein Members, and any other hon. Member who does not take the Oath, on the same basis as to any other elected Member.

Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Robin Cook: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to continue, I give him an undertaking that I shall give way to him next.
	I concede that the motion would reduce the extent to which there is a distinction between Sinn Fein Members and other hon. Members. It is not my motion, but amendment (m), tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), that would perpetuate two classes of MPs—those of us who are entitled to support in our work for constituents, and those who are denied it.
	Some amendments have been tabled that would introduce a new version of the two classes of MPs. They would divide us into those who would get constituency allowances under the same rules as everyone else, and those who would get them under special rules invented specifically for the four Sinn Fein MPs. If the motion is approved and constituency allowances are to be extended to Sinn Fein Members, they should receive it on the same basis, for the same purposes and with the same regulations as any other hon. Member.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Leader of the House say how we are to police the allowances? One of the House's sanctions is that it can prevent hon. Members from sitting in the House if they have acted improperly. The Sinn Fein Members will not be sitting in the House, as they decline to do so. In those circumstances, how will the expenditure and allocation of the allowances be properly policed when no sanctions can be exercised against Sinn Fein Members?

Robin Cook: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that suspension from the House also involves being barred from the precincts of the premises. Any motion carried in the House to suspend any of the four Sinn Fein MPs would reverse the position set out in the motion today, and those MPs would lose access to the House and its facilities.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked how the allowances would be policed, as he put it. The Sinn Fein MPs could claim the allowances only on the same basis as any other hon. Member can—namely, that they are spent "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" on constituency duties. The four Sinn Fein MPs would have to observe the same rules as everyone else. If Conservative Members do not believe that the rules are properly policed, they should, by all means, come forward with proposals to tighten the rules for every hon. Member.
	If any of the Sinn Fein MPs' staff apply for a pass to the House's precincts, they will be required to satisfy the same security test as the staff of any other hon. Member. Those rules are common to all hon. Members. If they are unsatisfactory, they should be amended for all hon. Members, not just for four hon. Members.

Frank Field: The members of staff employed by hon. Members in furtherance of their parliamentary duties have to satisfy the office of the Serjeant-at-Arms that they are not a security risk. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to lay in the Library of the House the advice that he has been given by the Serjeant-at-Arms' office in connection with the changes that he proposes?

Robin Cook: I have discussed the matter with the Serjeant-at-Arms. The advice that I have given to the Serjeant-at-Arms is that we cannot change the rules, the process of vetting or the tests for Sinn Fein Members' staff. They must be subject to the same test as the staff of any other hon. Member. I assure my right hon. Friend that no separate advice to the contrary has been tendered to me. I hope that that gives him the reassurance that he was seeking: the security tests will be the same for Sinn Fein Members' staff as for the staff of any other hon. Member.

Frank Field: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. My question was not about the advice that my right hon. Friend had given to the Serjeant-at-Arms, but about the advice that the Serjeant-at-Arms gave to him. Could that advice be made available to hon. Members in the Library?

Robin Cook: I have received no such advice, but I assure the House that, if I do, I shall make it public.

Helen Jackson: The Register of Members' Interests was published recently. If the facilities of the House are being extended to these four elected Members, should not those hon. Members be expected to register their interests?

Robin Cook: The motion will enable the four Sinn Fein Members to make an entry in the register. They are not required to do so under the rules, which provide that Members shall be obliged to make an entry only within three months of taking their seat. If that disappoints Opposition Members, I can give them the assurance that the motion will bring the four Sinn Fein Members within the scope of the remit of Mrs. Filkin, who will be able to apply the code of conduct. [Laughter.]
	This place is an expression of the electoral process. Whatever our individual views of the politics of Sinn Fein, each of us must accept that the Sinn Fein MPs were elected to this House and were elected by their constituents.
	Our constituents approach us with a wide range of issues, from their tax liability to their pension entitlement. It is because of that demand from our constituents that the House has approved allowances for all Members to provide a professional service to their constituents. We should not deny the same service to 250,000 United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland by refusing their MPs the same constituency allowances.

Hugo Swire: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that Conservative Members see a very real difference between constituency MPs who are prepared to take the Oath and represent their constituents in this Chamber and those who are prepared to take the money but not take the Oath and cannot properly represent their constituents in this Chamber?

Robin Cook: The Sinn Fein MPs will continue not to get any salary until such time as they take the Oath. The hon. Gentleman must ask himself whether he really regards his constituency allowances as money for himself. Does he not rather regard them as money to enable him to provide a service for his constituents? Most of those who voted in those four constituencies did not vote for the Sinn Fein candidate. Why should they be denied the same constituency services that we demand for ourselves and our constituents?
	I began my speech by referring to the momentous developments that we have seen in Northern Ireland: I shall also end with them. The peace process has made it possible to contemplate the changes proposed in the motion, but it also makes it necessary to adopt these changes. The aim of many years of dialogue with republicans has been to persuade them to give up violence and engage instead in the political process.

Paul Goodman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Robin Cook: No, I will not give way again.
	In Belfast, republicans have engaged in the political process on everything from child welfare to care of the elderly. We cannot demand that process of engagement in Northern Ireland if we at Westminster keep the door firmly barred in case Sinn Fein MPs even put their foot across it.

Jonathan Sayeed: rose—

Robin Cook: I know that for some Members this is a difficult step. I respect the sincerity of those who feel that they cannot take it. However, I ask them to respect the sincerity of those of us who believe that the time has come to take this step to help the peace process.
	We all—both sides of the House, I presume—welcome the ceasefire, which, for four years, has stopped IRA bombs and attacks on the security services. Most of us welcome the development of an elected Assembly in place of direct rule. If we want the ceasefire to become permanent and if we want the new democratic institutions of Northern Ireland to grow in strength, the House should also be prepared to contribute to the process of political engagement. The motion before us is one small contribution that the House can make, and I invite the House to support it.

Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment (q), in line 1, leave out "8th January 2002" and insert—
	"the completion of decommissioning, as verified by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning".
	This is a worrying day for the House. It could turn out to be a very sad day—a memorable day in an unfortunate sense—for the House. Let me first say that I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for intervening on the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman should be particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for giving him the opportunity to salvage something of his reputation this afternoon. It was only after taking my hon. Friend's intervention that the right hon. Gentleman disclosed to the House a point that is blatantly clear from the Government's proposal: there is indeed a very real distinction between the regime that the Government are proposing for the Sinn Fein-IRA MPs and the status quo ante before the ruling in 1997 of your predecessor, Mr. Speaker.
	During the earlier part of the speech of the Leader of the House, I was being given the clear impression—and I was not alone—that he was arguing that all that was happening was that the Government were restoring the status quo ante. The most charitable construction that one could have put upon that was that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken the trouble to read his own motion, which states:
	"and may claim support for their costs as set out in the Resolution of 5th July 2001, relating to Members' Allowances, Insurance &c., and the allowances relating to travel within the United Kingdom for Members, their families and staff".
	Those allowances were never available to Members who did not take their seat. That was explicitly set out in the statement made on 14 May 1997 by your illustrious predecessor, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] Far from forgetting it, I have had a copy of it before me since the beginning of the debate. Madam Speaker said:
	"In 1924, one of my predecessors ruled that any such Member"—
	that is, Members who did not take their seats—
	"could not receive a salary, and this regulation also applies to allowances."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 35.]
	At that time, Madam Speaker made an authoritative statement of the position before she tightened the rules.

Phyllis Starkey: The Leader of the House pointed out that we were reinstating the situation pre-1997. Notwithstanding the fact that none of those Members availed themselves of the facilities, immediately before 1997 they could have done so. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he objects to the principle, or merely to the fact that the increased value of the office costs allowance is available to them? That is not a matter of principle, but it casts aspersions on the ability of the Fees Office properly to police the spending of that money.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Lady invites me to give her a preview of my speech. I should be happy to summarise it in one minute so that she can leave the Chamber if she wants to do so. Although I shall demonstrate—I hope, persuasively—the validity of two points, the focus of my remarks will be limited to those points.
	The first point is that the Conservatives object very much to the whole concept of the creation of two-tier membership of the House, with the distortions that would flow from that. The second point is that we object fundamentally to the idea of making more unreciprocated concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA—especially treating the rules of the House of Commons as the currency for such concessions.

Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

John Reid: rose—

Quentin Davies: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman in turn—that is fair.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Opposition spokesman for giving way. Will he consider the democratic argument? Four constituencies elected Members of Parliament on the clear understanding that those Members would not partake in parliamentary proceedings—as they had made clear during the election campaign. What business is it of the hon. Gentleman or of the House to deny the constituents of those MPs facilities at Westminster that would enable the MPs better to represent individuals of all parties in their constituencies? Is that not a fundamental democratic argument that seems to have entirely escaped the Conservative party?

Quentin Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman advancing the extraordinary argument that anybody who stands for election in this country—on however absurd a programme as regards the parliamentary rules that he or she will or will not accept if elected—should, once elected, compel the rest of the House to change its rules to accommodate whatever bizarre demands they set out in their manifesto? That position is utterly unreasonable.

John Reid: rose—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Quentin Davies: I shall give way to the Secretary of State, but then I want to make some progress.

John Reid: I would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman answered the extremely important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey); it is important that we know on what basis the Conservative party has decided to end its bipartisan approach of 30 years. Does he object to the principle relating to the facilities involved or does he object to the money? If he objects to the principle, will he explain why the Conservative Government found no objection to the principle of providing the facilities for nine years while the IRA were bombing and not on ceasefire? Can we have a very straight answer to that fundamental question, because a political position that has lasted 30 years seems to have been broken? I repeat: does the hon. Gentleman's objection relate to the principle, or to the money? If it relates to the principle, why have Conservative Members changed their minds since past decades of Conservative Government?

Quentin Davies: The right hon. Gentleman also asks me for a preview of much of my speech, but I do not need to give him another preview because he, by parliamentary convention, is rather compelled—unlike the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)—to remain in the Chamber to hear my speech, so he will hear exactly what I have to say on this subject. I assume that the Government want to hear my speech, or indeed that of any Opposition Member on this subject, but perhaps they are too ashamed of themselves and do not want to hear anything that we may have to say.

John Gummer: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will consider the fact that we are elected as Members of Parliament not just to deal with people's tax problems and the like; we are primarily elected to take decisions in this House about the future of this nation in the world in which we live, and we are given the allowances for that purpose as a whole. Does he agree, therefore, that at the very least there ought to be a different understanding for those who are not prepared to shoulder the main job of being a Member of Parliament?

Quentin Davies: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The allowances are, of course, given to those hon. Members who wish to do a full job here and to enable them to do so.

Martin Salter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: No, I will not take any more interventions for the moment; otherwise we shall not make progress—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.

Quentin Davies: I am conscious of the fact that a great many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in this debate, and rightly so because it touches the integrity of House of Commons, so I do not want to take up too much time.
	I must, however, deal with two extraordinary distortions—I can only politely call them that because I am conscious of your strictures, Mr. Speaker, that I must keep to parliamentary language—that emerged from the speech made by the Leader of the House, the first of which was the comparison of the anomaly that would be produced by agreeing to the motion with the situation in Stormont. There is in fact no comparison at all between the position in Stormont and that in the House, because Sinn Fein-IRA have agreed to take their seats in the Assembly at Stormont and in the Executive there; they are playing a full part in those two new devolved institutions. For my part, I am delighted that they are playing a full part in those institutions, and we would welcome it if they decided to take a full part in the proceedings of the House of Commons and took their seats here.
	We have no illusions about Sinn Fein-IRA, unlike the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who, in last night's debate on Northern Ireland, compared the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA to that between the Labour party and the trade union movement. We have no such illusions about them or their record, but we respect the rules of democracy. Those four persons have been democratically duly elected to their seats in this House and the doors here are open; they are welcome to take their seats. If they take their seats, they are, of course, welcome to all the facilities and allowances that go with that.

Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Douglas Hogg: rose—

Quentin Davies: I shall give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman, then to my right hon. and learned Friend, and then I shall proceed with my speech.

Jon Owen Jones: Although there are many differences between Members in the House and Sinn Fein—and we disapprove of Sinn Fein—does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is one honourable difference? Many Members on both sides are republicans but not a single one of them was elected as a republican. Because of the Oath that the House sets, a Member who is a republican and who was elected as such needs to deny the platform that he was elected on before he can take his seat in the House. How does the hon. Gentleman defend that?

Quentin Davies: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman intended to make a helpful intervention, but he is simply misinformed about the facts. Sinn Fein-IRA have made statements recently—one appeared in the Irish Times on 14 December and, although I did not hear it myself, colleagues heard Pat Doherty make a similar one on the radio this morning—and they have made it clear that, even if the Oath were abolished, they would not take their seats in what Mr. Doherty apparently described as a foreign Parliament.

Douglas Hogg: To build on my hon. Friend's point, once it is accepted that it is right to allow former terrorists or supporters of terrorists to become Members of the House—that is my view—should we not resolutely confront the problem of the Oath? I am a constitutional monarchist, but I do not see why my duties as a Member of the House should be defined with reference to the Crown. Should we not, in fact, re-examine the Oath, so that we have either no oath or an oath that does not strain the consciences of loyal republicans? I refer not to the IRA but to others who are loyal and committed republicans.

Quentin Davies: My right hon. and learned Friend is a very distinguished lawyer and he takes a considerable theoretical interest in all these matters. He raises enormously important subjects that are not at all germane to today's debate. If anyone in the House seriously wants to abolish the concept of the Loyal Oath, I suggest that he or she take the opportunity to table a separate motion so that the House can pronounce on the subject. I have a very clear view as to how the House would pronounce in such an eventuality. However, that is not the issue that has been raised today.
	The issue before us is not a suggestion that we should change our rules for everyone—that would mean that everyone would still be subject to the same rules on the same terms—but the suggestion that we should distort our rules to produce two sets of rules: one for one type of Member of Parliament and one for another type of Member. Conservative Members will certainly decide—and I hope that the whole House will—that that is a thoroughly unacceptable course to take.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Oath of Allegiance is not germane to the debate. However, amendment (t)—which is in his name and which you have selected, Mr. Speaker—makes specific reference to the "oath of allegiance". If therefore the hon. Gentleman is speaking for the Conservative party, he has the duty to answer the question of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The present rules, which the Government are trying to change, deal with elected Members taking or not taking their seats. The suggestion is that there should be one regime for Members taking their seats and another for Members who do not. The extent to which taking their seat is conditional or should no longer be conditional on taking an oath is a separate matter. I shall not be drawn any further down that road.
	I have dealt with two entirely gratuitous distortions that the Government have made this afternoon. The first is the suggestion that there is an analogy with Stormont. There is no such analogy. In Stormont, Sinn Fein-IRA accept the same rules as everyone else and they are welcome here on the basis that they accept the same rules as everyone else.
	The second distortion is the suggestion that we are trying to bar Sinn Fein-IRA Members from taking the seats here to which they have been elected. I have explained that that is not at all the case. They themselves have precluded themselves—most recently in a statement on the radio only this morning—from taking their seats in Parliament, whatever we do about the Loyal Oath or about anything else.

Gerald Howarth: I heard Pat Doherty on the "Today" programme this morning as, I am sure, did other hon. Members. He described this place as a foreign Parliament. The problem is not the Oath of Allegiance, but his complete contempt for this place. Why should we allow someone who holds this place in such contempt, and who does not play a part in it and has no wish to, any access to public money in this country?

Quentin Davies: I share my hon. Friend's immediate response. There are two issues to consider. The first is whether we should create a distorted regime with a two-tier categorisation of Members of Parliament. The second is that if we create a specially privileged category of Members of Parliament who can access facilities, money and so forth without taking their seats, we must consider whether it is bizarre—

Martin Salter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: No, not for the time being.
	We have to consider whether it is perverse and bizarre to allow the beneficiaries of such a special regime to be people to whom we owe so little by way of favours—I am trying to make my point as mildly as I can—as we do to Sinn Fein-IRA.
	Why have the Government made this proposal? We all know—they have not attempted to deny this—that they would not have attempted to create a special regime for special types of MPs in any other context. If any one of us had formed up to the right hon. Gentleman in his role as Leader of the House and said, "Look, it would rather suit us after the next election, if we get elected, not actually to take up our seats, but to have the offices, money and travel allowances. Would that be all right? Would the Government like to use their vast majority—their pay-roll vote—to help us get that through?", we would have got a dusty answer. We all know that the Government are providing a specific and direct privilege that is to be handed over to one category of Members of Parliament who have been elected on a Sinn Fein-IRA ticket.
	The great question that the Leader of the House has to answer is: why are we doing this? What are we getting in return? We know that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland discussed the matter with Sinn Fein-IRA, because he told us so last night. As that has been the subject of negotiation, what is the other side offering? The Government have promised to change—indeed, I repeat, to distort—our rules in the House of Commons, but what are they receiving in return?
	I shall be delighted to give way to the Leader of the House if he wants to answer my question, but he shakes his head and does not intend to respond. That goes to the heart of the trouble that we have with supporting the Government on Northern Ireland. They introduce such one-sided measures without consulting the Opposition or giving a public response in the House of Commons to our questions, and then expect us to support them. What an extraordinary state of affairs it is that a Government in those circumstances seriously think that they deserve support.

Martin Salter: rose—

David Winnick: rose—

Quentin Davies: I give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) because he has a long- standing interest in Irish matters and has played a distinguished role in those in the House. After that, I do not intend to give way for a while because I must make progress.

David Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those words. Does he remember that, at the height of IRA terror, his Government constantly denied that there was any contact between them and the IRA, yet on 29 November 1993 the Secretary of State admitted to the House that there had been a means of contact between the IRA and the British Government over many years? The Opposition could have made great play of that. We could have said that the Government were hypocritical and the rest, but we did not. That was not out of sympathy for the IRA—we loathed its crimes and atrocities—but because we believed that if the Conservative Government were having contact with the IRA, they were doing so for the national interest.

Quentin Davies: If that is an invitation to launch into a seminar on Irish history, now is not the time or the place, much as I would find it fascinating to do so. If, on the other hand, it is an attempt to throw me off my stride or to help the Leader of the House by protecting him from some of my strictures, I have to tell him that it simply will not work, because I do not intend to be thrown off my stride.

Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. Does the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) want to give way?

Quentin Davies: Yes, I will give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Ian Paisley: I told the House what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and the House threw me out because I told the truth.

Quentin Davies: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman told the truth in his own inimitable way. I am sorry that I was not here at that time to hear what he said or to witness the reaction; it sounds as though it was rather traumatic.
	We have established that this measure, which was brought forward as a change to the rules of the House of Commons, has nothing to do with the interests of the House. In no sense at all is the Leader of the House making this proposal as part of his responsibility to improve and modernise our procedures. It is simply part of the Government's policy of endless concessions to, and appeasement of, Sinn Fein-IRA. Hardly a week goes by—this week, hardly a day goes by—without the announcement of a further concession.
	I spoke about this last night. It is a deplorable situation for two reasons. First, these endless concessions are unreciprocated. They are being given away in exchange for precisely nothing. Let no one say that they are being made in exchange for decommissioning. Decommissioning was part of the Belfast agreement and should have been completed two years after the agreement was made. Against that, various things had to be done by the other parties concerned, including the British and Irish Governments. The British Government made a major concession to paramilitaries by releasing all terrorist prisoners. They released those prisoners unaccountably and extraordinarily, even though it was not necessary to do so within the terms of the agreement, and without any progress having been made on the other side or any decommissioning having taken place. That was a catastrophic mistake. It meant that decommissioning did not happen within two years; nor did it happen within three years.
	The Government then completely panicked and decided that they had better make more concessions, which were not even in the Belfast agreement. In other words, they proposed to increase the price but were still receiving nothing at all. They went to Weston Park and made a whole new raft of concessions, but what happened? They did not get decommissioning. A week or so later, Sinn Fein-IRA withdrew from the agreement on the methodology of decommissioning which they had negotiated with General de Chastelain at the time of the Weston Park meeting. As I said last night, that was a real blow to the Government and indeed to the peace process.
	The tragic events of 11 September and the public exposure of the IRA's involvement with FARC in Colombia meant that we had a new international situation, which could not possibly have been predicted by the Government or anyone else. It was not until then that new pressures could be exerted on Sinn Fein-IRA and we had the first act of decommissioning in October, and very welcome it was. However, it was simply the first act in what ought to be a process, and one in which the Government should be doing everything possible to make rapid progress. It is vital for the stability of Northern Ireland and for everyone's confidence in its new institutions that decommissioning be completed at the earliest possible opportunity.
	Against that background, I am sorry to say that the Government have fallen back, with a vengeance, into their bad habit of throwing out concession after concession without receiving anything in return. We have had dramatic evidence of that today. We all know that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not slow to intervene in the House. He loves to jump up when he thinks that he can gain a point. The Government have brought this measure forward as a concession to Sinn Fein-IRA. That has been established beyond any doubt in the debate this afternoon. I asked the Secretary of State a simple question: what was received in return? I said that I would give way to him and am prepared to do so now if he will answer that simple question. No answer. Shall I wait? Shall I observe a five-second silence while the right hon. Gentleman gathers his thoughts? It is clear that nothing—

John Reid: Although the hon. Gentleman with his much vaunted history of Ireland is too blind to see it, one of the gains that we get is a compromise from republicans on engaging in dialogue in the House, as I shall point out later. Now that I have told him the gain, will he tell me the answer to a fundamental question that he promised 20 minutes ago, and explain the foundation of Conservative Members' opposition? Do they object in principle to what is being done on facilities or is it the money? If they object in principle to extending the facilities now that the IRA have decommissioned, why did his Government not object in principle when they were blowing up ordinary civilians throughout the country?

Quentin Davies: I will not allow the right hon. Gentleman to get away without taking up the absurdity of his remarks at the beginning of his intervention. I distinctly heard him say that it was necessary to pass the motion to give us opportunities for dialogue with Sinn Fein-IRA. He has an opportunity, as do I or any one of us, to engage in dialogue with Sinn Fein-IRA in Belfast or anywhere else, including London, if they came here. They can come to the House of Commons—

John Reid: rose—

Quentin Davies: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will sit down for a moment and let me finish my sentence. We have every opportunity for dialogue with Sinn Fein-IRA, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase; they can come to his office in the House of Commons any time they choose. The idea that we have to pay them money, travel expenses and an office cost allowance to have a dialogue is absurd. Does he think that whenever he wants to have a dialogue with someone he has to pay them money in advance?

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman is proving himself not only blind but deaf. I did not say that that was necessary to have a dialogue. I said that one of the gains that we all got from the move was to bring Sinn Fein into dialogue in the House. Now that I have clarified that again, will the hon. Gentleman answer the question. Is he objecting in principle or to the money?

Quentin Davies: I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman's question frankly. The proposal is objectionable and problematic in principle, but life consists of making difficult choices. If the right hon. Gentleman did not know that, let me tell him it now.

John Reid: rose—

Quentin Davies: No, no, no. The right hon. Gentleman cannot ask me a question and not even allow me to finish one sentence before he tries to get in again. I am sorry—he will have to sit there until I have finished answering his question.
	Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman again that life consists of difficult choices. Politics and much of human life consist of defending what is essential and being prepared if necessary to give away the less essential and the non-essential. I shall explain frankly to him the views of my colleagues and me on the matter. We would not lightly change the rules of the House; above all, we would be extremely reluctant to produce a regime for Members of Parliament that is not universal, does not apply equally to all Members and does not give them the same obligations and rights. Even more essential to the national interest is fulfilling the Belfast process and achieving complete decommissioning, which the right hon. Gentleman has so far failed to do. We are therefore prepared to contemplate such an arrangement, anomalous and objectionable as it is, if it is the price of full and complete decommissioning. Under no circumstances—

John Reid: rose—

Quentin Davies: Let me finish; this is important. Under no circumstances are we prepared to contemplate it simply as a kind of goodwill gesture or unilateral concession. Above all, the arrangement is not necessary or—if the right hon. Gentleman would like me to correct my earlier quotation of his remarks—desirable to help to promote dialogue. That is utterly absurd and he knows it full well.

John Reid: Now we have it. There is an objection in principle to the facilities of the House being extended to Sinn Fein after the IRA have gone on ceasefire, after Sinn Fein has Ministers and Members of the Assembly, and the IRA have decommissioned. [Interruption.] Can the hon. Gentleman explain why there was no objection in principle from the Tory Government to the facilities being made available when the IRA were not on ceasefire, Sinn Fein was not participating in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the IRA were bombing and blasting their way through this country?

Quentin Davies: I have already explained exhaustively to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no analogy between the position in Stormont and the position at Westminster. Surely I need not repeat myself a third time on that subject. I have also explained exhaustively that, contrary to what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House implied at the beginning of his speech, it is certainly not true that the motion would restore the status quo ante. That impression would have been extremely deceptive, had the right hon. Gentleman continued to sustain it. I am glad that he corrected himself and the point has been made clear.
	Before I conclude my remarks, I must set out, first, what we find particularly objectionable about the Government's approach to Northern Ireland, and secondly, how the Opposition could do a great deal more to protect this country's interests and facilitate decommissioning.
	We object to the Government's policy of endless unilateral concession. We object to the lack of reciprocity, discipline and any sense of how to conduct a businesslike negotiation. We have seen that again and again. The Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, in which there are further unilateral concessions, had its First Reading today. We saw another example last night, when the regime for decommissioning was extended by five years, whereas we had all hoped that the extension would be for just a few months or a year at most. What an appalling signal to send to Sinn Fein-IRA.
	Far from maximising the leverage that they have on Sinn Fein-IRA, the Government are continually relaxing the pressure. They are continually making concessions and demanding nothing in return.

Hugh Bayley: rose—

Quentin Davies: I am not giving way at this stage. The hon. Gentleman will have to catch Mr. Speaker's eye later.
	The Government's approach is disastrous. Sinn Fein-IRA do not take it seriously. They know that they have merely to whine, and the Government will keep them happy with some new concession. That has been the story all along.
	Our second great objection to Government policy is the extraordinary mind set with which they approach the problem. They seem to think that of all those with whom they might be negotiating in a hard world, Sinn Fein-IRA alone are soft people who will respond generously and sentimentally to concessions. The lack of realism is amazing. It was most graphically represented the other day when the House debated the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
	As originally drafted, the Bill contained an extraordinary clause whereby the powers taken against terrorism in the Bill—understandably taken, in the present circumstances—would not apply to terrorism directed against a part of this country. Of course, we objected to that, and the Government accepted the error of their ways and withdrew that pernicious distinction. However, the Government seemed prepared to introduce an anti- terrorism Bill which perversely discriminated against this country—in other words, a Bill that provided a less severe regime for terrorist threats directed against our own citizens than for terrorist threats directed elsewhere. It is difficult to speculate on the mind set that could produce such a distortion.

Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: I said that I would not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Did he not hear me the first time? [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I am sorry that I cannot give way, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I accept that it is necessary for Front Benchers to take as many interventions as possible and I appreciate that that is what Parliament is about, but there comes a point when one must move on. I am within a few minutes of letting everybody else take part in the debate, if I am allowed do so.
	Against the background of completely uncontrolled concessions, the Government's seemingly complete failure to appreciate the need to maintain some balance in their dealings with Sinn Fein-IRA, and an extraordinary tendency to believe that terrorist threats in this country are not as real as those in the rest of the world, it is not surprising that we in the Conservative party have had to review very seriously our policy towards supporting the Government. We would love to get back to a greater degree of bipartisanship and I hope and trust that we may do so. We remain utterly committed to the Belfast agreement, the peace process and the success of devolved democracy in Northern Ireland. We simply do not believe that the Government are going about things in a sensible way if they wish to reinforce those institutions.

Brian Mawhinney: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Quentin Davies: Of course I shall have to make an exception in favour of my right hon. Friend.

Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He rightly reminded the House that, when the Conservatives were in government, the Labour Opposition from time to time did not support measures that we introduced. The bipartisan approach never implied total agreement or accord, but it was the pillar on which the Belfast process was built and moved forward, and it was also of great succour to our fighting men and women who were putting their lives on the line for this nation. Can I say to him that, while he is right to criticise individual aspects of Government policy, especially tonight, many of us are still wedded to the concept of the importance, both historically and in the future, of a bipartisan approach?

Quentin Davies: I am one of those people. I am very much committed to the idea of bipartisanship in this field, as I have said. I agree entirely that we have jointly supported the Belfast agreement. Indeed, I continue to hope—perhaps against hope—that we can get back to a bipartisan approach, but we will not do so on the basis of the tactics adopted by the Government. Neither will we do so, I must tell the Leader of the House, on the basis of the Government's attitude to the House of Commons as he represents it. He cannot get away with neither answering questions to the House nor consulting us in private and still expecting us to support his policies. That does not make any sense.

Hugh Bayley: rose—

Quentin Davies: I am very sorry; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I had to make an exception in favour of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who has great experience of Northern Ireland.
	The Opposition's view, which I have reiterated several times—I can see that I shall have to return to it on future occasions, as I do not think that the Government have taken it on board—is that it is very important, if we are going to maximise pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA to decommission and get decommissioning from other paramilitaries, that a slightly more robust stance be taken. I have proposed that the Government should at least attempt to negotiate a full package—I have called it a programmed process—leading to full decommissioning, so that all parties concerned, including the British Government, know what needs to be done by whom, when and in what order, and so that we have a clear, linked and co-ordinated agreement leading to the completion of decommissioning. Until and unless such a package is negotiated, there should be no further unilateral concessions, least of all if they involve throwing away the integrity of this House. That is what we are deeply concerned about.
	As Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that he has an absolute responsibility before the House and before history to ensure that we do not lightly treat our rules and procedures, lightly create different rules for different people, or play ducks and drakes with the constitution of the House of Commons. Above all, he must recognise that we do not sell our rules and procedures, least of all if we receive nothing in return.

Harry Barnes: I hope that all hon. Members recognise that I have a record of strenuous opposition to Sinn Fein and that I would never wish us to be soft on it. However, I support the motion so that we can engage with Sinn Fein and express views that its members would find uncomfortable but would have to try to tackle.
	My assistant chairs a group called New Dialogue, which has often disputed Sinn Fein's ideas. I have supplied access to the House to people such as Sean O'Callaghan, who was the southern organiser of the Provisional IRA, but changed his position and became an informer on that organisation. There would therefore be some difficulties for me, and people who work for me, or are associated with me, if Sinn Fein had access to the House. Nevertheless, the motion could lead to substantial gains, and it should be supported.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Does the hon. Gentleman know that Mr. O'Callaghan's successor as southern commander of the Provisional IRA is now Member of Parliament for West Tyrone? The motion would give him full access to the House's facilities.

Harry Barnes: That already happens in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and there are no problems there. Indeed, the Opposition have said that they would not worry if Sinn Fein Members took their seats as long as they took the Oath and thus became full Members. However, there is a difficulty about rubbing shoulders, which must also exist in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I believe that we should bear it and try to deal with it. We should be aware of it but respond to it strongly.

Paul Goodman: Does the hon. Gentleman know that as recently as 20 November, Republican News, the Sinn Fein newspaper, republished an article entitled "IRA Strike Hard"? It referred to a hard-hitting IRA operation, which succeeded in "executing" someone whom it described as the "loyalist extremist Robert Bradford", a former Member of Parliament. Given the contempt of Sinn Fein and the IRA for democracy as represented by the House and its Members, is it the right time to admit the four people whom we are considering to the facilities of this place?

Harry Barnes: It is the right time. I do not doubt what the hon. Gentleman says about the positions that Sinn Fein adopts in Republican News. I have been attacked on its front pages for lines that I have taken. However, changes are happening. A sea change is beginning that allows us to start to draw Sinn Fein into the political process and to put alternative viewpoints, which, I hope, will drive it from having any standing or position in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.
	We cannot get rid of Sinn Fein's political viewpoint by trying to distance ourselves from it. At one time, we tried to deny Sinn Fein the oxygen of publicity. Sinn Fein Members were seen on television, but their voices were not heard, because their words were spoken by actors. We were told that if that system were changed, the news media might engage in proper discussions with Sinn Fein. Unfortunately, when the change occurred, that full and fearless discussion did not take place. Sinn Fein gets away with murder on television, and perhaps elsewhere, in terms of their position. We should be capable of taking on Sinn Fein and we should have sufficient strength in our position to be prepared fearlessly to argue those points.
	The fact that Sinn Fein Members would be around and about within the Palace of Westminster has advantages for the rest of us in taking on board their position. I would sooner that means were found—perhaps getting rid of the Oath—to allow them to sit on these Benches. It would then be easier to take on their arguments, because they are not unanswerable.

Nick Hawkins: If there were to be an opportunity to debate the abhorrent policies of Sinn Fein-IRA as a result of those Members taking their seats, the hon. Gentleman's argument would stand up. However, we know that the Sinn Fein Members said in their election addresses—and repeated it on the "Today" programme this morning—that they were not prepared to take part in any democratic debates in this Chamber. It is not a matter of the Oath, important though that is. They abhor democracy and have referred to this place as a foreign Parliament. How can we allow these terrorists into this democratic debate? They are not democrats.

Harry Barnes: Abhorring democracy and seeing this place as foreign are not tied together. The loyalty of those Members may be seen to be more towards the Republic of Ireland than the UK, but the Republic has a democratic system. Those Members have some problems in dealing with the argument within the institutions of the Republic. I would like to see the day when they are taken fully on board within the Republic of Ireland.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I take my hon. Friend back to the Oath? The general understanding of the Sinn Fein position is that its Members do not wish to take their seats in the British Parliament because they want a united Ireland and a Parliament there in which they could take part. The argument on this motion is fundamentally a democratic one about the rights of those Members to represent their constituents in the best way that they can. By denying them access to this building, we deny their constituents access to democratic representation.

Harry Barnes: They should be here, but not just because of the rights that that would give them and those on whose behalf they speak. It is about the rights that we are given to deal with their position—a position that we should be capable of responding to.

David Winnick: Did not the Provisional IRA come into existence not to achieve democratic reforms in Northern Ireland, but for one reason and one reason only: to bring about a united Ireland, against the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland? Where is this united Ireland? Is it not as remote as it was 30 years ago? Why on earth do some people give the impression that the IRA has won a remarkable victory?

Harry Barnes: Yes. The Belfast agreement essentially guarantees Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom, unless the people agree in a referendum to change it, and that is light years away. Unionism should recognise that it has gained a tremendous advantage from the situation. The Opposition continually argue that concession after concession has been made to Sinn Fein, but that is not the case. An overall position advantageous to Unionism has emerged from the agreement, and that must be recognised.
	On occasion, attempts are made to push back Sinn Fein. For example, in my speech last night, I discussed the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, a Bill that is directed fundamentally against Sinn Fein, which manipulates and manoeuvres the electorate to get seats. It has not been ruled against by electoral courts, so its members still hold legitimate positions, but, in the end, if the issue is dealt with fully and properly in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein will win fewer seats.
	If we take on the politics that I have described, I believe that we will overrun Sinn Fein so that constitutional nationalism, through the Social Democratic and Labour party, for instance, would be in a prominent position. The Labour party should be willing to organise in Northern Ireland to take those issues on and we should take the debate on measures that the House considers into the Province to argue the case.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I agree totally with my hon. Friend on that count—for many years, I have advocated restoring the Northern Ireland Labour party—but may I ask about another matter? I assume that he regards himself as my equal. Like me, he was elected by adult franchise and by a majority in his constituency according to an electoral system that he and I recognise. If he arrived in the House of Commons and found that, unfortunately, he was subject to one set of basic rules while another Member operated under a second and totally different set that offered some privileges without the work having to be done, what would be his response?

Harry Barnes: Any elected Member is subject to the provisions that are being agreed to tonight and that are established generally. In some future situation, someone else, apart from Sinn Fein Members, might decide that he wants to operate in that peculiar way, but it is not a matter of fundamental constitutional or parliamentary principle that what is proposed should not occur.
	I return to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). Traditionally, Sinn Fein would not take seats in the Republic of Ireland or in Stormont, but the situation has changed. The distorted principles that it held in the past have been influenced and altered, and it is willing to act to try to maximise its political advantage or to minimise disadvantages. Owing to that, it agreed to the position on putting some arms beyond use. It was under tremendous pressure and liable to lose very much financially and politically, so it has altered its views and attitudes. It is on the slippery slope over its past position and we should encourage that.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his shadow had an argument about whether the motion is a matter of principle or of money. The shadow Secretary of State said that, in the end, it is a matter of principle, although it sounded to me as though it is about the money.
	If it is about the money, I do not know what Sinn Fein is after. It is the richest political party in western Europe, and it has obtained its money by all sorts of devious and other means. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) that Sinn Fein Members should be obliged to make an entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
	A number of Members have registered the fact that 25 per cent. or more of their election expenses came from certain organisations, such as trade unions in the case of various Labour Members. Where did 25 per cent. of Sinn Fein's money come from when its members stood for election? If Sinn Fein Members had to register such details, they should be subject to investigation, especially if—for all Members—we made investigation of such matters more rigorous. If we began to take account of some of the manoeuvres and manipulations in which the organisation has been involved, that would be a healthy development.

Michael Connarty: Did I mishear, or did the Leader of the House indeed say that no registration would be required because the Members had not taken their seats, and that although they were engaging in constituency advocacy and representation, they would not be subject to the same rules as other Members?

Harry Barnes: Perhaps that could be clarified. I understood that those who had taken the Oath and had been Members for more than three months must then be included in the register. If that excludes Sinn Fein, the provision should be altered.

Robin Cook: Let me clear up this point. The provision does not exclude Sinn Fein, although my hon. Friend is right about the requirement for registration within three months of a Member's taking his seat. If registration were required of Sinn Fein Members, or indeed any other Members who did not take the Oath, it would have to take place three months after their election.
	In response to an earlier intervention, let me add that those who do not take the Oath are bound by the same code of conduct as those who do, and are therefore required to accept investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Not all the consequences of the motion might be equally welcome to the four Sinn Fein MPs.

Harry Barnes: Some Members laughed during that intervention, but I think that such points about standards and arrangements are very important. Even if there is no general willingness to obey the rules, they will take on a new significance: they will begin to alter the shape of the activities in which the Members have been involved. That has already begun to happen in the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. If we can encourage it to happen here, we should take the chance.

Michael Mates: Not for the first time, I fully agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He makes an important point which, with respect, the Leader of the House has not properly answered. Nothing in the motion will change the current position whereby a Member who has not taken his seat is not required to make an entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I confirmed that today—Members may not know that the new register was published today. Under "Adams, Gerry" we see only:
	"Mr. Adams has not taken his seat."
	If the hon. Gentleman is trying to press the Leader of the House to change that as well—if the House passes the motion giving Sinn Fein Members these allowances— I am right behind him, and I think that most of the House will be as well.

Harry Barnes: That matter should be taken on board. If it is not covered by the current arrangements, it should be. We are not doing it on this occasion because it might not be procedurally possible. If some of us had known of this debate a little earlier, we could have tabled the appropriate amendments. Nevertheless, it should be done as soon as possible. The measure on registration should apply to Sinn Fein Members as much as it applies to anyone else.

Martin Smyth: I admire the hon. Gentleman's hope and optimism. He may be aware that the Electoral Commission has already published the expenses of the parties at the last general election, including the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but the figure for Sinn Fein accepted by the Electoral Commission is £8,000 or £9,000. How will the commission discover what was spent by Sinn Fein and bring that out into the open? Is it not time that we stopped pussyfooting around in the whole business?

Harry Barnes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am in favour of the finances of Sinn Fein, the IRA, other paramilitary bodies and the parties linked to them being thoroughly investigated and seeing the light of day, and of taking action that flows from that against those organisations, but that is not the only tactic that we should be engaged in. We should not always engage in the tactic of pressure to get concessions, as it were. We should also be for pulling them into the political process.
	The analogy between how the Labour party came out of the trade unions and how Sinn Fein as a political body came out of the IRA has some relevance. The Labour party started to change over time. It distanced itself from the trade unions—too much, some of us think. We want Sinn Fein, because it has been pulled into the political process, to begin to detach itself from what remains of the IRA. I suspect that the IRA will still be strong and involved in racketeering and mafia-type activity. Action will have to be taken at that time. We could reach a situation in which the organisations begin to be distinct and not inextricably interlinked, as they happen to be at the moment.

Peter Kilfoyle: I am a Liverpool, Irish, cradle Catholic. I happen to be inclined towards republicanism. I also aspire to a united Ireland, but I knew when I came in here that I would have to take an Oath of Allegiance. I also knew that the honour of being an MP was about representing not just Westminster in the constituency but the constituency in Westminster. Does it not denigrate hon. Members to suggest that there is an honourable role for people to act just as glorified social workers in their constituency, without their being held to account in this Chamber, with all the rules that go with it?

Harry Barnes: Sinn Fein should be here and should be held to account. On a past occasion, I acted on behalf of a constituent in Belfast, West. I finished up getting what seemed to be a letter of safe conduct from Gerry Adams in connection with that, saying that it was okay to go ahead. I argued about that because he should be here doing his work, and checking and responding to the Executive, but it is a matter of how we achieve that situation. It will not occur dramatically.
	It is all right for people such as me. I have reservations about the Oath and about the religious prayers that take place here each day, but I involve myself in them. I am not one of those people who sits down during prayers to show that I have a principled position. I will be a hypocrite, pray and turn around with everyone else even though I might not share those views. The Oath to the Crown is perhaps like that, but there are far more important and significant things to do. I wish that Northern Ireland politics was not so hung up on ideas, views and strict principles that can never be invaded, even though those views are sometimes despicable.

Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the point that I made to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)? Is there not a difference between holding republican or atheistic views, such as those that my hon. Friend expressed, and standing for election and being elected on them, and then being asked to deny them to take a seat in this House?

Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend's point was well put, and that is a particular problem. If principles, whatever they are, are writ large, people have difficulty moving beyond them. I believe in many different principles that all rub up against each other. On some occasions, I have to make difficult choices between them. I wish that that were the case for Sinn Fein and many other politicians in Northern Ireland.

Douglas Hogg: Building on the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), is not the way forward not to create two separate classes of Member, but to remove the Oath, either entirely or in the form in which it stands in the way of loyal, committed republicans honestly taking it? If we remove the Oath in its present form, Sinn Fein has no possible excuse for not sitting here, and its members can take up all their rights and obligations or none of them. What they cannot do is say that we are standing in their way.

Harry Barnes: I have much sympathy for that point of view, because if not having the Oath made it easier for Members to take their seats, everybody would be on an equal footing. The argument of Sinn Fein Members would then be weakened. One could ask why they had taken their seats in the Republic of Ireland Parliament in a divided Ireland and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but refused to take their seats in the UK Parliament. They would, in time, take their seats here. If we accept the motion, we will make progress in that direction. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to press for that change, I would support it, but it could build on the motion before us today.

Frank Field: My hon. Friend said that we should make it easy for people to take an Oath and enter the Commons. Surely we should have an Oath that concentrates on the essentials, which concern the way in which political affairs should be conducted in this country. That might be difficult for some people to take, but it would be essential for us to hold to. We need to put aside some aspects of the Oath that are not essential but that may be barriers to people taking it, and concentrate on what is essential. We should not make the test one of whether it is easy for people to take the Oath, but of whether the Oath is meaningful and reflects the democratic way of life that this Chamber represents.

Harry Barnes: Either we need an Oath that relates to democracy and parliamentary activities or, as suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), no Oath at all. Why have an Oath if people have been elected to the House through due procedure? Such people would have been elected by the majority of the electorate in their constituencies, and we should proceed on that basis.
	It would have been possible to make a speech even if I had had no notes, because I have taken so many interventions. They have carried me along and made me think on my feet.
	In conclusion, I shall describe my general political position, as it affects my attitude to the motion. It is sometimes argued that people who adopt my position are really Orangemen or Unionists. That is not the case. I happen to believe that there are many honourable and decent Unionists. We should be very concerned about the Unionist working class, and we should not parody Unionists as people in bowler hats walking in parades. We should understand the reality of their culture.
	However, I am not green either. In the long run, the commercial and economic links between the north and south of Ireland might grow and people might decide to change the constitutional arrangements. That is up to them. I have neither a green agenda, nor an orange one. I feel that all the stuff about the border is trivial, and has been blown up into a great issue. It prevents us from discussing the bread-and-butter political issues that affect people's lives in working-class areas.
	In different territories of Belfast, the streets are either red, white and blue or green, orange and white. Yet the people in those areas have much more in common with each other than they have in opposition to each other. Therefore, my colour is red, not green or orange. My position is that of the traditional democrat socialist: I believe in the essential unity of people, and especially of working-class people. I believe that their position in society should be raised, and that working-class Catholics and Protestants should live together.
	In 1906, the Labour party—formerly the Labour Representation Committee—held its first conference in Belfast. The problem is that the party does not even organise in the city now. That is something to which we should return.

Lembit �pik: It is clear that the key question is whether it is acceptable to agree with the Government and provide office space and costs to Sinn Fein Members, or whether the idea is such a bad one that it justifies the Conservative party walking away from the bipartisan arrangement.
	I and many other hon. Members accept that this is a vexed issue. Many hon. Members whom I respectsuch as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and others among my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Bencheshave significant concerns about the principle involved in giving Sinn Fein Members these facilities when they are not required to take the Oath, and all that that entails.
	The vote at the end of the debate will be free, and I suggest that the balance is in favour of approving the motion. The concerns about principle, valid though they may be, are outweighed by the benefit that would be done to the peace process. Crucially, they are outweighed by the fact that, at every stage in the negotiation of the normalisation of life in Northern Ireland, similar leaps of faith have had to be taken, and by parties of more than one colour.

Nick Hawkins: Should not the hon. Gentleman be a little more realistic? He is the Liberal Democrat Front- Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland matters, and I am one of the security spokesmen for the Conservative party. We both know that the reality is that, even though tonight's vote may technically be described as free for members of other parties, the Government intend to insure that their payroll vote will force the matter through in a way that is wholly unconscionable. Will not the hon. Gentleman speak about the reality of the position in this House on this important matter?

Lembit �pik: The reality is that it is not for me to pronounce on the internal organisation of the Labour party. I assure the hon. Gentleman that tonight's vote will be genuinely free for Liberal Democrat Members. I hope that my colleagues, when they make their decision, take into account my comments, as well as those of others. However, as an aside, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is curious that, although the motion is subject to a free vote among Conservative Members, it nevertheless has sufficient policy implications that the party feels able to walk away from the bipartisan agreement. I fail to understand how those two factors can coincide.

Martin Salter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the official Oppositionthe Conservative and Unionist partymight demur from the bipartisan approach to the Northern Ireland peace process as a result of understandable principles on such issues as the release of prisoners or lack of progress on decommissioning? Does he accept how inexplicable people over here and in Northern Ireland will find the fact that 30 years of bipartisan work is being torn up over the principle of a desk, an office space and access to a photocopier?

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman and I take the same position. There is a fundamental contradiction, however, in the Conservative spokespeople on Northern Ireland pretending that their party has a free vote and yet pronouncing, hours before the debate is even held and before they have seen how their colleagues vote, that they will walk away from the bipartisan agreement.

Quentin Davies: The explanation is simple. Much to our regret, we have found it impossible to support or, often, even to understand Government policy in recent weeks. They have made no attempt to explain it to us either privately or in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman has heard me ask questions that go to the heart of this and other proposals for Northern Ireland to which we have not had responses. It is not the case that we have walked away from bipartisanship because of this issue, or, indeed, that we have walked away from bipartisanship at all. The Government have made it impossible for us to be bipartisan. This is just one of a series of endless and apparently uncontrolled concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA.
	Conservative Members always have a free vote on House of Commons issues, and this is essentially a House of Commons issue. It is, however, one of the many contexts in which the Government have given us great grounds for anxiety about the course on which they are launched in negotiating the completion of the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Lembit �pik: That serves to confirm that either the hon. Gentleman is not aware of his pronouncements in the press or that he is choosing to redefine what a free vote means. He specifically stated in the press that Conservative Members were walking away from the bipartisan agreement explicitly because of the decision that they anticipated would be made tonight.
	The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to say that he speaks for the Conservative party. As I am a Liberal and enjoy an eclectic political approach, perhaps I should join the Conservative party. It seems that a free vote is not a free vote and that Front-Bench Members can say whatever they like because the free vote really belongs to them.

Quentin Davies: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is quoting, but he is not quoting me. If he had listened to what I just said, he would understand what our policy is. If he has some other quotation, let him put it to me. There may be some speculation about my position, but whatever has been said is not a direct quote from me.

Lembit �pik: My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) tells me that he heard the hon. Gentleman on the radio.
	I think that I have made my point, and Members can draw their own conclusion.

Robin Cook: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. On its front page, The Daily Telegraphwhich is daily reading for mesays:
	the Tories said they were pulling the plug on the principle of cross-party support.
	That appears to be in the context of what The Daily Telegraph helpfully says is an interview with
	the shadow Northern Ireland secretary.
	Either the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made what I am sure was an error in misleading The Daily Telegraph as to what the Conservative party was doing or he has had second thoughts since that interview.

Lembit �pik: I can see that the hon. Gentleman wishes to say something. If he wishes to intervene on me, I am happy to give way again.

Quentin Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to correct what the Leader of the House has said. The right hon. Gentleman did not quote my words, which are quite properly quotedexcept for one wrong wordon page 4 of The Daily Telegraph. The words in inverted commas are properly attributed to me, except for one, and I stand by them. I am not responsible for any press comment on that interview or anything else.

Lembit �pik: I knew that the anti-terrorism legislation was pernicious, but if it is so powerful that the Government have managed to win over the heart and mind of The Daily Telegraph, that is indeed worrying. I have made my point, the hon. Gentleman has tried to respond and the House can draw its own conclusions.
	I assume that to walk away from bipartisanship does not mean walking away from the shared goal of peace. I hope to convince hon. Memberson the Liberal Democrat Benches and elsewherethat, at heart, the judgment that we should make tonight is whether the motion will so help peace and improve the chances for a sustained and normalised political environment that it is worth the risks and the emotional costs involved. The real debate is thus whether such a precedentit is indeed a precedentis acceptable in the context of the big picture in Northern Ireland that we must always bear in mind.
	I hope that the House will accept the following point in the spirit in which it is intended. The debate has thrown into sharp focus for the entire House a matter that is often debated by a small and experienced number of Membersperhaps 20 or 30who are often in the Chamber. We are really discussing a snapshot of the point that we have reached in the peace process. The discussion of the need to do things in a new way is not a new principle.
	Having criticised the Conservatives for walking away from bipartisanship, I now offer the House three examples of momentous precedents set by the Conservative party in the pursuit of peace. Hon. Members will remember the stress and the history of the Anglo-Irish agreement. Although we all accept the strength of the relationship that now exists between Dublin and Westminster, let us not forget that it was almost non-existent before the advent of that agreement.
	The Anglo-Irish agreement was instituted at a time when the Dublin Government claimed a constitutional hold over Northern Irelandthat they had a constitutional mandate to reunify Ireland. Who was the person who pushed through that agreement? It was Margaret Thatchernot regarded as a republican icon in any quarter. Why did she promote the agreement? Because in her judgmentand to her creditand in the judgment of her Government, the potential loss of popularity was more than outweighed by the benefits to the peace process.
	The second precedent was created by another former Conservative Prime Minister, John Major. He picked up the phone and spoke to the IRA at a time when they were not even on a ceasefire. When he was holding those conversations, which had beenas we have already heardgoing on for some time, the IRA were bombing, maiming and killing, and destroying property as part of what they considered a war.
	Was John Major an apologist for the IRA? Absolutely not. The reason that he took what turned out to be a courageous and laudable decision was that, in his judgment, it was the right one to secure the ultimate goal of peace. I said during our debate last nightas I have said many times in the Chamberthat John Major's great contribution to the House was the series of decisions that he took, initially in private, which he then made public, to negotiate with individuals who had never been involved in the decision-making process.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I am most impressed by his argument. However, can he offer me a single instancejust oneof evidence that the important change that we propose to make tonight will produce the kind of result that he is talking about?

Lembit �pik: I am describing unique and unprecedented incidents and arguing that the proposal falls into the same category: it is a new and unique opportunity to set a further precedent. I fully accept the hon. Lady's implication: a risk is involvedas there was on those previous occasions. However, I want to show the House that whenever we have taken such risksalthough they may not have been justifiable at the timethey were worth it in the longer term.

David Winnick: When a Conservative Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a statement regarding contacts with the IRA, I do not recall that any Conservative Member objected to what was being proposedperhaps hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench would care to listen to my remarks. Is not it true that the only Conservative who resigned from a Government position over the Anglo-Irish agreement was Ian Gow, who was to be foully murdered by the IRA? No other Minister considered it appropriate to resign.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman's intervention simply serves to show that, to the credit of the Conservative party and others in the House, it was decided that the interests of Northern Ireland exceeded the party political gain to be made from taking an opportunistic shot at the then Government. Furthermore, they were vindicated in taking that decision.
	The third example closely relates to what happened last night. In 1997, when John Major was still the Prime Minister and Conservative Members occupied the Government Benches, they passed an amnesty on handing in weapons under which paramilitary organisations and terrorists would not be prosecuted for handing in their guns. Let us remember that that took place in a political vacuumthere was no Good Friday agreement, nor any guarantee that there would be any lasting ceasefire, yet, once again, John Major set a precedent in Northern Ireland's recent history. He did so because he believed that the risk of setting that precedentletting people off the hook and, by implication, letting people off the principle of being prosecuted for being terroristswas more than outweighed by the benefit.

Andrew Stunell: I have been following my hon. Friend's argument carefully, and I agree with much of it, but does he not agree that it would be much to the benefit of the House if some of the issues raised so far in the debate were taken forward by the Leader of the House, particularly those relating to the Oath, Members' interests and the possible reimposition of the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 on the financing and management of Northern Ireland parties?

Lembit �pik: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the Minister would be advised to respond to it in his summation at the end of the debate. Some very important issues have been raisedfor example, by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)and I shall say a few words about them in a little while.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that there has been no reciprocation, but those three examples provide evidence to show that the risks that the Conservative Government took were paid back in clear and definitive results. I am sure that the Anglo-Irish agreement was the forerunner to the decision by the south of Ireland to abandon, eventually by referendum, its constitutional claim to Northern Ireland. That momentous decision would not have been taken if the Conservative Government and Margaret Thatcher had not driven forward that decision at an earlier stage.
	On the secret talks on terrorism, I am pretty certain that the Good Friday agreement would not have been reached if the former Conservative Government had not had the courage to make progress, first in secret and then in public. Once again, there is clear evidencealbeit circumstantialthat that was justified.
	I am absolutely certain that the limited movement on arms in October 2001, which has led to the first important, albeit symbolic, act of decommissioning by the IRA would not have occurred without the amnesty which was launched in 1997. If the risk is tested against the result in each of those three examples, we can put a tick in the box and say that the risk was vindicated on all three occasions.
	The process is not new. It is a little known fact that in 1972 Gerry Adams and other republican prisoners

David Trimble: Internees.

Lembit �pik: I am sorry. Internees were flown to London for secret talks with Secretary of State Whitelaw to find out whether progress could be made. I hope that I have clearly shown that such precedents often produce results in Northern Ireland.
	The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said that a strong stance leads to progress, but on what basis? Each of those three events was an act of good faith, and each produced howls of protest in the Chamber, uncertainty among Northern Ireland's politicians for very good reasons and discomfort within the Government, yet each event led to breakthroughs that have brought us very close to peace.
	The issue is not whether this proposal is a precedent but whether this precedent conforms to the criteria that caused previous Governments to take comparable risks. I would argue that it does and that the points raised by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford do not stand up to scrutiny when they are compared with the earlier practical precedents. Furthermore, the claim that that view has a basis of principle was clearly undermined by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who pointed out that, in large part, we are returning to circumstances that prevailed for half the entire term of the previous Conservative Administrationsfor nine yearswithout being amended. Therefore, in fairness to those on the Conservative Front Bench, I must assume that they are willing to listen to arguments about practicality.
	To return to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), certain issues need to be resolved. There is confusion as to whether Elizabeth Filkin will have a binding power to scrutinise the new Members. Will the Minister respond on that point and, if she does not have that power, will he assure us that the position will be amended in due course? However, as Unionist Members have pointed out, some fear that Mrs. Filkin risks being put verifiably beyond use.
	The issue of confidence-building measures on both sides came up in the debate last night. Those who have most justification for being deeply concerned by the proposal are those on the Unionist Benches. They are on the front-line of Northern Ireland politics and theynot ushave had to put up with many concessions, perceived concessions and reconciliation and so forth.
	By taking some of the heat ourselves, we are, to some extent, making amends for the enormous pressures that we have put on Northern Ireland's politicians. This proposal is not a new concept for Northern Ireland or for Stormont and, if we feel some discomfort, it is only a fraction of that felt in Northern Ireland as we caused a political settlement to take place that mandatorily required cross-party support and cross-party alliance. It is telling that that cross-party alliance led 100 per cent. of the nationalists and republicans in Stormont to vote to maintain the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)a Unionistin the post of First Minister. [Interruption.] I can hear the delight and joy as hon. Members behind me recall that wonderful occasion, but the achievement of Stormont is that it has achieved some form of reconciliation. I suggest that we are now taking on a small share of that process.
	The amendments to the motion can be categorised in three classes: requirements about the Oath, requirements about renouncing violence and requirements about decommissioning. On the first class, Liberal Democrats feel that there is a strong case to move forward on the Oath, and I have heard other Members also express that view. I seek guidance from the Minister on what plans there might be to tackle that issue. However, I doubt whether simply changing the Oath will overcome the strong principled objection to the republicans sitting in the House. However, let us remember that history shows us that they have been here before.
	On the second class of amendments, no one wants individuals who celebrate violence in this place. However, this proposal is hardly a green light for anyone coming here to use it as a base to promote violent activities. I doubt whether anyone in their right mind would seriously suggest that a terrorist organisation would have the audacity or even the stupidity to do that from within the curtilage of the House.
	On the point about decommissioning, I believe that this proposal will be a driver to decommissioning. One of the tests of success is whether decommissioning proceeds, and we will be sorely let down by the republican movement if it fails to deliver arms on the basis of such concessions.

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman mentions three classes of amendment, but is there not a fourth class? It tries, perhaps unsuccessfully, to make the important point that being a Member of Parliament is not just about doing the things that we all want to do, and care about doing, on behalf of our constituents as we look after their taxation needs and the like, but about playing a part in the House. The allowances are provided for both those activities. To apply them specifically to one activity makes a statement about the nature of the House that many of us, who are not known to be supporters of the extreme Unionist position, find distasteful.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly respect on many issues, rightly outlines the principal objection. If hon. Members believe that that objection is so great that they cannot go along with the motion, despite the perceived benefits that I suggest will accrue for the peace process, it would be principled for them to vote against it. I am simply saying that that is not where I stand, and I encourage my hon. Friends to take the same view. It is unarguable that the right hon. Gentleman raises an important consideration; if it were not, the debate would not be so charged.
	If Sinn Fein Members were totally cynical, they could take the Oath now and receive all the benefits, together with the salary. The fact is that they have not. I believe that we are discussing a halfway house that might one day lead them to take their places here. More than anything, however, it will stitch them closely into the parliamentary procedures of the Chamber, which will cause them to moderate their behaviour and to recognise that any return to violence will be hugely damaging to their public image both on the mainland and among the electorate to whom they are attempting to appeal.
	Let us also recognise that an enormous bitterness surrounds Northern Ireland politics. As human beings, we have human feelings about, for example, Airey Neave, the 300-plus police who have been killed in Northern Ireland and the thousands of casualties. The House would be a worse place if we did not have those feelings. However, we are at the juncture at which we should draw a line between the past and the future, and this measure is a watershed in that process. The emotional pressure that many people feel is understandable. The frustration about where we might be heading is genuine and we must make judgments accordingly. However, reconciliation is a doing word. It is a mutual act that is hard precisely because it begins with one side negotiating with those whom it hates and who, ultimately, have to reciprocate.
	We could demonise Sinn Fein and the leaders of the republican movement, although every time that we have done so we have caused a retrenchment and sometimes a recruitment drive in those organisations. Alternatively, we could subjugate our feelings to our values and ask whether this is another opportunity to build on the precedents set by the Conservative Government and this Government. I do not suggest that the world will end if we do not do that; nor do I suggest that peace and decommissioning will be secured tomorrow if we do. However, I ask hon. Members to consider whether the principal objection that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) outlined is so great that it precludes us from taking a further risk. If hon. Members think that, there is not much more that I can say to them, because the alternative is to take that risk in this free vote.
	Incidentally, unlike the Conservatives, we will not pull out of the agreement even if the Liberal Democrat vote goes against my recommendation. We will continue to play a positive and proactive part with all sides and all players, whatever the outcome tonight. Ironically, the debate has occurred simply because we have not had an opportunity to discuss the subject before, but it was inevitable that we would have to face it. This degree of cynicism is no longer appropriate.
	That is all I want to say. I shall respect what my colleagues do, but I sincerely hope that we prove, in our vote tonight, that reconciliation is not something that we force on the politicians and people of Northern Ireland and then leave at the door of the House when we come here to debate the very same matters.

Clive Soley: As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) suggested, the debate has two broad strandsthe rights of Members who stood for election on the basis of not taking their seat in this place, and the Northern Ireland peace process. Although I regard the first factor as important and deserving of careful debate and scrutiny, the second overrides it by far. On that basis, I shall urge all my hon. Friends to vote for the motion.
	There is a long history to the debate into which, obviously, it would not be appropriate to go, but I say to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that the fundamental flaw at the heart of his argument is one that the Conservative party has made a number of times, and it concerns the political judgment to be made. That judgment is about whether we want the peace process to go forward. The flaw in his argument led him into difficulty when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland asked him about the principle versus the money. The Conservative party has at times taken a view of the whole problem instead of a single part of it. Every now and then, it lurches back into looking at a small part, which is what it is doing today.
	I remember my earliest involvement in Northern Ireland issues in the House in the early 1980s, after the horrors of the dirty protest and the hunger strike. Jim Prior, now Lord Prior, was in my judgment probably the best Secretary of State that Northern Ireland had under that Government, or indeed under previous Governments. He made dramatic progress because he recognised, as a number of us had been arguing for many years, that neither the Unionists nor the republicans could overturn what was desired by both the British and Irish Governments acting in union, and that what was required to sort out the complex problems of Northern Ireland was a joint agreement between Ireland and Britain.
	It was Lord Prior who achieved that agreement. He sat on the Government Front Bench, and I on the Opposition Front Bench, late into the night, night after night, and he was being driven to the wall by the late Enoch Powell and all the Unionists. I would rally what few troops I hadthere were usually only one or two of us about at 3 o'clock in the morningto support the Conservative Government when it came to a vote. We did that because we knew that the process was going in the right direction, even though we might have had individual disagreements about the way in which it was achieved.
	I knew early on that, quite apart from the horrors of the hunger strike and the dirty protest, not only would those events be a publicity disaster for Britain but they would not help Sinn Fein in the long run. The way out of the trap was to achieve the classic British fudge, which I and others had been suggesting for some time, of refusing to give the prisoners political status, which would have been utterly wrong, while making certain concessions, such as allowing them to wear civilian clothes, which we had already given prisoners on this side of the water regardless of why they had committed their offence.
	We might describe the proposal tonight as a British fudgeI do not care whether we do or not. The principle that we are concerned with here, of sorting out the nightmarish problems of Northern Ireland, is more important than whether there are slight inconsistencies in the use of the allowances paid to Members of the House.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Why, then, does not the motion make it clear that we are talking not about the House of Commons but about a concession for the House that has political implications way beyond our shores, and which should be regarded not as something that affects the House but as a matter relating to Irish politics? There is no indication of that anywhere on the Order Paper.

Clive Soley: My hon. Friend is right, but as I said at the beginning of my remarks, there are two strands to this matter. I shall turn in a moment to the second strand, which might satisfy her, but only to a limited extent. We cannot approach the motion without bearing in mind the overall political context. I make to my hon. Friend the same point that I made to the Conservative party: if we make that mistake again, we will lurch back into the problems that the Conservative Government got into several times when dealing with Northern Ireland. They got stuck on a detail, instead of looking to the long term.
	Some of those problems have been referred to already. I remember the Conservative Government having secret talks with the IRA, never mind Sinn Fein. I supported them in that because in my view the talks were necessary and a good idea. The Government were in difficulty with their own side partly because they were reliant for their survival, at that stage, on Unionist votes, and because they could not themselves, as a party, face the difficulty of crossing that bridge. It was a difficult bridge to cross, just as the release of prisoners was difficult. No one should doubt the difficulty of these issues.
	There is something else that we in this House, rather than people in Northern Ireland, need to remember: that both Unionists and republicans have made incredible concessions. We ought to respect that. The concessions that they have made could not have been predicted 20 years ago. They became a little more predictable recently. I turn now to some of those concessions because they return us to the core of the motion.
	There is a process whereby Sinn Fein, in particular, and some Unionist paramilitary groups, are moving, hesitantly and at times in contradictory ways, towards accepting the democratic process and rejecting violence. There are very few examples in history of such organisations renouncing violence overnight and sticking with that promise. It is almost always a messy, unpleasant, inconsistent and dishonest process, but it is a process, and that is why the phrase peace process is so important and why I tell people to keep that in mind.

Andrew Stunell: I am following what the hon. Gentleman says, and I agree with him very much. Does he agree, however, that the peace process can go forward or backward, but that it cannot remain stationary, which is one good reason for moving it forward tonight?

Clive Soley: I was going to say that the one thing that Northern Ireland cannot afford to do is to stand still. It stood still for hundreds of years, which did it nothing but damage. At times, we all look across the water at Northern Ireland and think, This couldn't possibly be Britain. As I used to point out to Sinn Fein, 10 or 15 years ago, nor could it be southern Ireland, because southern Ireland had changed. Britain had changed too, but the idea that Northern Ireland, whether Unionist or republican, was like Britain or Ireland was becoming a nonsense. The more that Northern Ireland dug itself into the violence and hatred, the more different it got. One of the core problems was that we had to pull Northern Ireland out of that process.
	I turn now to the second strand of the issue, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred. If I were pushed, I would say that there is a difficulty about how far we make concessions about the facilities that MPs can use, even if they got themselves elected on the basis of not taking their seats. There is no great point of principle. This is an argument about where the line should be drawn. More importantly, rather than getting bogged down on the question of whether Members are representing their constituentsa fair point made in an interventionwe should address a different argument that links the matter straight back into the peace process. That argument is that Sinn Fein will move.
	In the past, I have made certain predictions about where the Unionists will end up and where the republicans will end up. I have been wrong on both scores at times, but I have also been right on several occasions. I make another prediction tonight: that within about four years, Sinn Fein Members will be taking their seats on those Benches. [Interruption.] Let me tell the House why I say that. I have seen statements from Sinn Fein saying that its Members will not take their seats even if we change the Oath, and I shall return to the Oath. When members of Sinn Fein told me that, they did so with the same intensity that they told me they would never take seats in the Stormont Assemblythat they would never accept the idea of a united Ireland by consent because that would mean a Unionist veto. They said that they would stay with the bullet and the ballot box, or the Armalite and the ballot box, until the British were driven out of Ireland. That did not happen and they accepted the present situation.
	In saying all those things, I do not wish to underestimate or understate the concessions made by the Unionists. I recognise how far they have moved, especially in recent years. People on the ground in Northern Irelandthe Unionist populationare changing. Seeing them used to make me sad because they seemed to be trapped in the past. Now, however, they are emerging from that and, although their progress is slow and painful, they are moving, and we must help them with that.
	The issue of the Oath is important. When I served on the Modernisation Committee three or four years ago, I put it to members of the Committee that we ought to change the Oath. I proposed not that we get rid of the existing one, but that alongside it should run an oath that would enable Members to swear allegiance to the democratic process of Parliament.
	Many countries have accepted such an oath. In fact, we have drawn up such oaths for themit is not the first example of our writing other constitutions rather better than we wrote our own. People ought to have a choice. When I served on the Modernisation Committee I made the pointI think that Baroness Boothroyd refers to it in her bookthat such an oath would assist in getting Sinn Fein into the House. I said so because wider issues were involved; it was daft that people such as the late Willie Hamilton should come to the House, take an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, then stand up in the Chamber and denounce every aspect of the British royal family. That is a contradiction for many Scottish nationalists; it is anomalous that many Members on both sides of the House should have to take the Oath in that way.
	Although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was right to separate the issue of the Oath from today's debate and vote, it would be a mistake to lose sight of the underlying argument.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that it may be better to have no oath at all? We would simply be elected to Parliament and declared elected by the returning officer. That would be the end of it; we would then get on with the job.

Clive Soley: That is possible, although there may be value in showing a commitment to the parliamentary and democratic process.

Jeremy Corbyn: We could be nominated, then.

Clive Soley: That might be enough, but dictators have emerged in Parliament; it might be a little easier for them to take over if people have not signed up to the democratic process. One can argue about whether or not such an oath is important; most of us who believe in a democratic process should not have any difficulty in taking it. Sinn Fein argues that it is in favour of the democratic process. One can question whether or not itor, indeed, many Unionist paramilitary groupshas been in favour of it over the years, but it is moving towards that position. The fact that members of Sinn Fein are taking their seats in Stormont, when they said that they would not, and are serving as Ministers, when they said that they would not, indicates that that is happening.

Edward Garnier: First, would it not be more intellectually honest of the Government to debate the Oath or whatever affirmation is required of Members of Parliament, and then come to the debate that we are now having? Secondly, would it not be more intellectually honest of them to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and refer not to the facilities of the House but step 54 of the peace process?

Clive Soley: It would have been more intellectually honest of former Prime Minister John Major to say that he was having secret talks with the IRA. At the beginning of my speech I said that two things were being held up for judgment: the process by which people take their seats and receive support, and the question of Northern Ireland. I made it clear that although there may be problems with people taking their seats, taxpayers' support and so on, in such a situation we should do something that the British are good at. We should say, In these circumstances, certain inconsistencies are involved, but there is a greater political gain because we are engaged in a peace process that is helping the people of Northern Ireland enormously.
	That is profoundly important. If one sets the issue in that context, it is a mistake to get hung up on the absolutes of black and white, putting things in little boxes and insisting that they stay there. The issue could, by all means, be blurred; if one tries to run politics by logic alone, one inevitably ends up fighting, not least because one person's logic is another person's contradiction.

John Gummer: I subscribed very much to the case that the hon. Gentleman has been arguing until he came to the question of how to solve the problem. If there is a genuine problem with the Oath, it should be addressed; otherwise, the issue is about dual Members of Parliament. We are talking about something serious; the wrong issue has been addressed to take the peace process further forward.

Clive Soley: First, the issue is not big enough to get in the way of the wider interests of the Northern Ireland peace process. Moreover, the question of how to move on that is not critically important to the Oath. If members of Sinn Fein were here now and I asked them whether they would take their seats in the House of Commons if we changed the Oath so that they did not swear allegiance to the British Crown, they would say, No, we will not, because we want to be part of a united Ireland, and this is the wrong place. They would say that, just as a relatively short time agoperhaps four, five or six years agothey told me that they would not take their seats in a Stormont Assembly set up by the British. Well, we set up the Assembly and they took their seats; they do their job, some of them are Ministers, and they work with the Unionists.
	We must keep things in perspective. One cannot run politics by logic aloneat the end of the day, one has to make judgments about what is best. I shall leave my judgment with the House. We ought to change the Oath, because that would help to keep the process moving and would help us to put more pressure on Sinn Fein Members to take their seats, as I predict they will in a few years' time. We should change it because that is the right thing to do for the peace process in Northern Ireland and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, there is no great principle at stake. I accept that there is a difficult question about the right thing to do with people who have stood for election on the basis that they will not take their seats. Although there is a messy argument about that, frankly, the problem is not big enough to justify great displays of opposition, breaking cross-party agreements and so on. I am not totally opposed to parties at times expressing opposition on Northern Irelandit is sometimes necessary to do so, and I have done so myselfbut we should not do so on an issue of such insignificance.

Brian Mawhinney: I made my maiden speech in a debate on Northern Ireland. In the succeeding twenty-two and a half years, I have had the privilege of attending more Northern Ireland debates than most people in the House.
	Virtually all those debates were characterised by the way in which the word principle came to dominate the discussion. Seldom do Members want to elevate their views to a matter of principle on virtually anything that we talk about in the Houseexcept in Northern Ireland debates. We quickly got into matters of principle this afternoon; I should like to back out of that cul-de-sac as quickly as possible. I remind the HouseI have no delusions of grandeur, so it will need remindingthat I was the first Minister involved in the peace process. On Valentine's day 1989, Tom King gave a speech in Belfast in which he said that he would ask me to initiate discussions with the political parties to see if there was any way forward. That was the start of the process. If I had stood up the following day in Belfast and said, In 12 years, there will be a Northern Ireland Assembly, there will be an Executive, an Ulster Unionist will be the First Minister, an SDLP member will be the Deputy First Minister and Sinn Fein Members will serveperhaps uncomfortably, but servein that Executive, the Secretary of State would have withdrawn me from the process the day afterwards and put somebody else in my place, and both sides of the House would have acclaimed his wisdom.
	Here we are, 12 years and two Governments later, with that processthat achievementin place. That achievement necessitated the taking of risk. Most, if not all, of the parties in the House can legitimately put up their hands and say, We played our part. We took risks in that process. Some of those risks worked and some did not, but more worked than did not, which is why we are where we are today. I played my small part in that process.
	It helps to underline for the House why in opposition I have maintained my consistent support for the peace process and the Belfast agreement. I did so because of the bipartisan approach. It was enormously important that the people of the United Kingdom and the people of Northern Ireland should understand that it did not matter who was in government at Westminster; there was a commitment to them and for them.
	That is why I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) to say that that principle seems to meI have used the word, and I intend to use it only onceto be still of paramount importance. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) was right. He did criticise us when we were in government. He sat on the Opposition Front Bench and I sat on the Government Front Bench, and from time to time he was aggressive in his bipartisanship. We had a good healthy debate, but I did not call into question his fundamental commitment, and I hope that he does not call mine into question today.
	I shall not vote in support of the motion tabled by the Leader of the House. There are problems associated with it. Had the Government wanted to move forward in the spirit that I outlined at the beginning of my speech, they could have done so, but they chose not to. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford is right. I have not taken many opportunities in the House to be critical of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but had he initiated some dialogue around the issues and offered some explanation, that would have helped the House immeasurably to come to a calmer judgment than is likely to be the case by 10 o'clock tonight or whenever we vote. However, the right hon. Gentleman chose not to do that.
	The Government have made an even more fundamental mistake. There is no doubt that the subject of the debate is one of a number of issues that have arisen out of secret discussions between the Government and Sinn Fein. The Government are perfectly entitledindeed, in my judgment it is rightto have secret discussions from time to time with political parties, particularly Sinn Fein. I have no problem with the fact that secret discussions have taken place. The problem arises from the fact that the Government have not told anybody what emerged from those secret discussions, much less tried to explain it.
	Instead, the Government have adopted a salami approach to policy. They produce one measure which they know that the House will not much like, and they argue, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush has just argued, that that is not big enough to put the whole peace process at risk, so the House must support it. Just as the House holds its nose and supports the measure, along come the Government with another oneno explanation, no justification and no indication of whether it is No. 2 on a list of two, five, 10 or 20.
	We go through the same motions. Hon. Members on both sides, but particularly on the Government side, say that the measure is not worth putting the whole peace process at risk, so the House is invited to support it. Blow me, before we get through that, the next one comes. It is rather like busesone waits for ages and nothing happens, then they come one after another.
	The Government have got themselves into difficulty this evening in part because they have not been willing to be straightforward and honest with the House. The House does not know what the Government's agenda is or what Sinn Fein's agenda is. If I may respectfully say so to the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bencheven worse, the House does not know what the combined agenda is. That contributes to the sense of alienation produced by motions like the one before us.
	We have had much debate this evening about the Oath. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I do not intend to participate in that debate. I am just a simple Belfast boy. We have an Oath; it is a requirement for membership of the House. What may or may not happen in the future is, for the purposes of the motion, totally irrelevant. The Oath exists in its present form. I swore it, the Leader of the House swore it, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland swore it, my hon. Friend the shadow spokesman swore itwe all swore it.

Douglas Hogg: Is not my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) right, and am I not right in my suggestion to those on the Government Front Bench, that one of the chief criticisms of the Government's approach to the motion is that they failed to address the question of the Oath first? For many of us, the problem of the Oath should be addressed before there is any ad hominem disapplication of rules in the case of Sinn Fein.

Brian Mawhinney: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I hold both him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) in high regard and I have frequently benefited from their wisdom. I shall not get into that debate tonight, because whatever the Government should or should not have done, we are faced with the Oath in its present form, and it will not change between now and 10 o'clock. If it does, that will be the story for the Today programme.
	It has already been said that that constitutes a major problem for Sinn Fein. To it, this is a foreign Parliament. Given that it is a foreign Parliament, I am not entirely clear why Sinn Fein wants to be a part of it, but it alleges that it does. The Leader of the HouseI think it was the Leader of the Housedrew attention to its focus on abstention and absenteeism. Sinn Fein did not wish to be part of anything. When it said ourselves alone, boy, did it mean it! Now, Sinn Fein is involved in the Dail, it is involved in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and it would like to be involved in the Westminster Parliament. The difference is that it wants to change the rules to be involved here, as compared with the rules in the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hold the Leader of the House in much higher regard than to believe for one moment that he does not understand that. I hope, therefore, that he will take in a spirit of generosity the suggestion that that is one of a number of points in his speech on which he was, at best, disingenuous. However, we ought not to be disingenuous; we should face up to the reality, which is that that is the issue.
	Why, then, is so much heat generated by the motion? It seems of no little significance that the thread of violence has run through this debate from its inception and will continue until its conclusion. For what we are talking about is welcoming into this Chamber or Palace people whose hands are dirty with the blood of others. Three Members of this House were killed by the IRA. Some of us have been the focus of personalised and determined assassination attempts. I still recall the evening when I sat in Londonderry and, to my surprise, saw my photograph on the evening news while the newsreader said that the IRA had announced a few minutes before that it had decided not to assassinate the Education Minister during his visit to Londonderry, on the grounds that innocent passers-by would be injured. This debate cannot be separated from that thread of violence.

David Winnick: The record of the IRA is known to all of us and to their numerous victims, of whom there are hundreds, if not thousands; but if the yardstick is the record of murderous violence, surely the issue would be the same if the Members in question were to take the Oath. Whether they have office facilities without coming into the Chamber or otherwise, the issue would be the same. Surely the point is that, whether we like it or not, they were elected as Members of Parliament and that is a fact of life.

Brian Mawhinney: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I hold in regard on Northern Ireland matters, in the middle of making my point. Perhaps it might have been more helpful if I had waited until I had finished doing so. I wanted to establish that when we debate these matters, the issue of violence is not far from the surface, but I was about to say that if that issue were the only criterion, there would not be a Northern Ireland Assembly today. It is not the only criterion, and it is not a sufficient criterion, given the progress that has been made in the past few years. I think that he will also accept, however, that human beings find it very difficult to switch off from issues of violence.
	Before I entered the Chamber this afternoon, I was approachedit was completely unsoughtby a number of secretaries who had been working in this Palace when the bomb went off. Their message was, We don't know, Brian, whether you intend to speak, but if you do, would you tell your colleagues that a number of us who work here are extremely nervous, concerned and unhappy about the prospect of the motion being agreed to this evening, because we have had contact with these people in the past? I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that violence is not of itself a sufficient criterionso what is sufficient?
	What this debate should be about is whether this House is willing to countenance a two-tier Member system. In my time on the Government Front Bench, I had the privilege of being a Minister of State in the Department of Health. I see some Labour Members who used to upbraid me because Conservative health policy, as they saw it, led to a two-tier health serviceof course, they were quite wrongwhich was anathema to them. I find it difficult to understand why two-tier representation in this Chamber is not even more of an anathema than an allegedly two-tier health service.
	Northern Ireland is the background to this debate, but the issue is simple: should all Members be equal in terms of their responsibility, the facilities that they enjoy and the influence that they can exert, or should some be more equal than others?

Eric Joyce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Brian Mawhinney: No, I have almost finished, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not doing so.
	Let me refer to what the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush said; this is a parliamentary debate, so I am responding to the last speech made before mine. I think that I wrote down his comments correctly. He said that the issue tonight was not big enough to endanger the peace process and that we should therefore vote with the Government so as not to put the process at risk. Where have I heard that before? I want to tell the House that this issue is not big enough to put the peace process at risk and Sinn Fein will not put it at risk if it does not get this motion. It is for that reason and on that analysis, and on the basis of reaffirming the importance of a bipartisan approach in general but with scope specifically to disagree from time to time, that I disagree with the Government on the motion and will not support them in the Lobby.

Helen Jackson: I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). Indeed, I am also pleased to be unmuzzled, as this is the first time that I have spoken on Northern Ireland since Labour was in opposition, because of my duties as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the last Parliament.

Douglas Hogg: Freedom.

Helen Jackson: Yesfreedom to speak in a debate that has been thoughtful and interesting, and significant in the context of the many debates in the House to which I listened during the last Parliament.
	I have considerable reservations and questions about the issue with which the motion deals, but I am determined to look at it, as I am a good constitutionalist who believes in the democracy that we enjoy here in this House and in its value to all of us here. I do so primarily from two points of view. First, I am not terribly interested in the people who represent the people of Northern Ireland, but I am very interested in the responsibility that we all have as Members of the House of Commons for the life, peace, political process and economic well-being of the people who live in that part of the United Kingdom, so I think that it is their interests that we have to consider first. My second guiding principle in addressing the matter is that of whether voting for the motion will ensure political progress and a continuation of the unsatisfactory but relative peace and ceasefires that that part of the United Kingdom has now enjoyed for some time.
	It angers me that the media have characterised the debate on the motion as, Shall we offer these four Members the benefits of the House of Commons? They ask whether the four Members should enjoy the benefits of having a cup of tea in the Tea Room or entering the Palace. I have great sympathy for the views of hon. Members who have bucked against that interpretation of our debate. They have explained that we are being asked to say to Sinn Fein Members, If you are legitimately elected by the constituents of West Tyrone, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mid-Ulster and Belfast, West, you have a place in this House. I believe that. They were democratically elected to represent 250,000 people.
	If we accept that premise, those Members should take up their responsibilities, step by step. It is therefore important to make it clear that being a Member of Parliament does not simply mean enjoying some sort of benefit. We use our office allowances for our constituents. Being a Member of Parliament requires responsibility and public accountability. I agree with the stress that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) placed on the four Sinn Fein Members being as accountable to the public as any other Member of Parliament.
	I looked at the new Register of Members' Interests this morning, and read the four Sinn Fein Members' entries, which were nil because they have not taken their seats.

Michael Mates: I want to correct the hon. Lady. The entries are not nil, which would tell people that hon. Members have no interests. Many hon. Members put nil. The entries simply state that the Sinn Fein Members have not taken their seats. That is a fundamental difference.

Helen Jackson: Yes, but the entries are nil in the sense that a member of the public who reads the register has no idea whether those Members receive any benefits from organisations. That is not right. Perhaps a change should be effected so that declaring interests is a requirement, not a request, on being elected rather than on taking one's seat. Let us ascertain whether we can do that. I do not say that it should be done today; I would be happy to do it next week or next year. The matter cannot be left as it is.
	I shall go along with the motion, but if it is accepted, we must be sure that the use of the allowances is properly scrutinised. There were some stupid, jeering comments such as, Money for guns from Opposition Members. The office allowances of the four Sinn Fein Members should be subject to no less scrutiny than ours. That also applies to the use of their staff's time.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: First, how will the allowances be scrutinised? Secondly, the motion creates a two-tier system of Members of Parliament. That may not be important to some hon. Members to whom Parliament appears increasingly to act as a rubber stamp, but we are dealing with a fundamental description of rights and responsibilities.

Helen Jackson: I had started to respond to that point by saying that the same scrutiny should be applied to the four Sinn Fein Members. We should begin by ensuring that we know what their interests are. The next step is to ask about their use of free telephones and headed notepaper in the House. We must ensure that they are used for constituency purposes.

Alan Duncan: The people whom we are considering have not taken their seats and are therefore not Members; because they are not Members, no sanctions can be applied against them. How can they be held to account if they cannot face the same scrutiny as Members who have taken their seats?

Helen Jackson: They have not taken their seats and their inability to sit in the Chamber cannot therefore be questioned. However, their ability to use facilities and office allowances can be questioned and sanctioned[Hon. Members: How?] If there is any evidence that the allowances are being used for party or other purposes, sanctions can be applied.

Frank Field: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Helen Jackson: I shall, but I want to proceed because we must consider the point from another angle.

Frank Field: Let us reflect on the times when hon. Members' conduct has been found unsuitable. The House debates the conduct and applies the sanction of suspension for a period of time. If people do not take their seats in the Chamber, what sanctions does my hon. Friend propose for bringing them to order in the same way as other Members for breaking the rules of the House?

Helen Jackson: With respect, my right hon. Friend makes the same point as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).

Frank Field: My hon. Friend is a bit rattled.

Helen Jackson: No. The sanction is clear: if the facilities are misused, we withdraw them.
	I believe that the whole approach should be slightly different. We must put ourselves in the position of residents of Mid-Ulster, Belfast, West, Fermanagh and South Tyrone or West Tyrone. If the motion is accepted, they will know that their elected representatives will come to the House of Commons and use the facilities. If I were such a constituent, I would ask, What are they doing on our behalf in the House of Commons? The democratic process would begin to take its course. When that happens, as the Conservative party found to its sorrow in the last two general elections, the result is the transfer of power to someone from another party, and perhaps the beginning of real politics in Northern Ireland.
	We must consider the significance of the motion in a wider context. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing and Acton

Clive Soley: And Shepherd's Bush.

Helen Jackson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) that we must not believe that the motion itself constitutes the overriding principle. We must reflect that we have come a long way down the road of promoting politics over violence in Northern Ireland. The motion may lead to strengthening the genuine democratic process in the areas of Northern Ireland that we are considering and other constituencies. If so, even though we do not like it, we must make a difficult decision, which will affect us as Members of Parliament. In the same way, many aspects of the Good Friday agreement have been extremely difficult for Unionists and members of Sinn Fein to stomach. However, this matter comes closer to our sensitivities in this Chamber than some other aspects of the agreement.

Alan Duncan: Can the hon. Lady think of any other self-respecting institution that would be so crass as to pay to have itself boycotted?

Helen Jackson: The hon. Gentleman describes this as one single issue and does not recognise that we have a responsibility to the wider public in Northern Ireland and to the peace process that has been negotiated satisfactorily over the past few years.

Clive Soley: The points made have been fair, but it should not be forgotten that, whether we like it or not, there was a decision of the electorate.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: They knew that these men were not going to come here.

Clive Soley: I understand the lecturing from my hon. Friend. I am simply making the point that if somebody who stands says, I will not take my seat, the electorate know what they can do. My guess is that many vote for such people because they are on the path to peace. If they went back to the path of violence, they would lose a lot of votes.

Helen Jackson: We have to decide whether we are taking it on trust that Sinn Fein signed up to the Good Friday agreement and has pursued a policyby no means on a united basis within the partyto move into the political system and the political process and away from achieving its goals by violence.
	For me, that was what the bipartisan arrangement in this Parliament was about. I agree with others who have said that this is not an issue that is bigger than the importance of the bipartisan approach. It is clear that Sinn Fein is eager to participate in a major way in the general election in the Irish Republic next year. Its members will take their seats in the Dail and, as Members of Parliament, we should be asking what interests they will register and how the party is scrutinised there. I am sure that the other parties in the Dail will be watching that closely.
	Trust is the key issue. Is there trust that we can move forward? Is there trust that the Unionists will share power? Is there trust that the republicans will continue to work within the political system? I listened to the debate yesterday and it was clear that we have a long way to go. Although some of the democratic and constitutional issues are on the way to being solved, there is still a culture of blame and bitterness.
	I have felt for many months that the Opposition's insistence on decommissioning as the touchstone was the wrong issue. The touchstone that affects the people on the street is the obscene level of violence that still exists in both loyalist and republican communities, with acts of grievous bodily harm usually going undetected and unpunished. The key issue for me is the establishment of a civil police service in Northern Ireland. Decommissioning is an issue, but people can go and buy guns the next day. If one stands for Government within a constitutional situation, one goes along with the rule of law. If so, one accepts a police service.

David Burnside: The hon. Lady refers to accepting the rule of law and to a civil police service. I have referred to a printed statement from Sinn Fein on posters that are going up in my constituency in Glengormleya troubled area next to north Belfastthat tells people not to join the RUC or the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and attacks the police as torturers. How can she say that Sinn Fein is now taking part in a process and recognises as a civil police force the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which has a policing board with representation from all the democratic political parties, but not Sinn Fein? She does not seem to be facing reality; she has left Northern Ireland.

Helen Jackson: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. My argument is that we need to agree the motion precisely because we need to bind Sinn Fein as tightly as we can into the political system and the political process in this House. This is our opportunity to do that.
	The first reason that I will vote for the motion is that we have to bind Sinn Fein closely into the political process. The second reasonsome colleagues will be surprised to hear thisis that the Government's Front Benchers have made the point strongly and, on this occasion, it is absolutely right to go along with the recommendation of the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House. I am very proud, as is most of the parliamentary Labour party, to have been part of a Government who have carried through the peace process over the last five or six years, following on from what the Conservative party started before we came into power.
	This is a difficult issue for this Parliament, but one we should go along with tonight. The final reason for doing that is that the politics of Northern Ireland have become problematical when they have become polemical, and that people have started to find the answer when they looked at what works, what works best and what is the most pragmatic way forward. This is a pragmatic step that may take us one step further and may help in the future.

David Trimble: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) touched on an important point when she gave one of her primary reasons for supporting the motionloyalty to her party and her Front Benchers. In saying that, she uttered a truth about the nature of the debate and tonight's supposedly free vote in that the vote is not free and the debate is not what it should benamely, a debate on a House of Commons matter treated seriously as such. I am afraid that the Government's approach from the outset showed a failure to engage with the seriousness of the issues and the occasion.
	In drawing up the list of speakers, Mr. Speaker was wise to decide that the first Government Member to speak after the Leader of the House would be the hon. Member for NorthEast Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). Members will have gathered from my comments last night that I have a high regard for him and he produced an argument for the motion, which the Leader of the House did not. The hon. Gentleman's argument, with which I shall engage in a few moments, was made at some length and with great seriousness. In an exchange with Members on both sides of the House, he set out his view sincerely and it deserves to be addressed.
	When I came to the debate, I thought that we might hear the Leader of the House's explanation of why the motion has been introduced at this particular moment and the reasons for addressing the matter that were absent in 1997 and 1999, which, so far as we know, was the last time the Government considered it. We did not get that. Instead, the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State, who came to his rescue several times, produced a series of red herrings.
	I hope that I have noted the first red herring correctly, but if I do not get the language precisely, we can always correct it later. The Leader of the House suggested that the former Speaker, Baroness Boothroyd, made her ruling in 1997 partly because the ceasefire had collapsed, but that is unfair to Baroness Boothroyd and it is in no way accurate.
	It is worth placing on record what Baroness Boothroyd said on the radio this morning when she discussed the issue and referred to her 1997 ruling. She said:
	My concern when I was Speaker and it still is, is not so much the politics of the situation because on that issue when I was Speaker . . . I was totally neutral. My concern then and now was to protect the rules of the House of Commons and to uphold the rule of law. And the rule of law of course, is the Parliamentary Oaths Act. And I wasn't discriminatory at all when I met with the Sinn Fein members, I explained the position to them, that they either had to take the Oath of Allegiance or they could not take up their full membership of the House of Commons.
	I have no doubt that that is precisely what motivated Baroness Boothroyd in 1997 and the Leader of the House may regret his suggestion that other factors influenced her.

Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman address the question whether we should have an Oath that many hon. Members who are perfectly honourable about their republicanismI am not referring to IRA memberscannot honestly take?

David Trimble: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a point that he made earlier. I shall deal with it if I manage to get through all my notes, but I must describe some other red herrings that Ministers dragged across the debate at the outset.
	The Leader of the House also said that the motion restores the position that pertained before the 1997 ruling. Of course, he had to withdraw that and acknowledge that it does not restore the pre-1997 status quo. It puts in place a completely different and novel regime, which, as a number of Members have said, would create two classes of Member of Parliament and, in so doing, open up important issues.

Frank Field: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, an aspect of the briefing that we were given is that the move being made today is part of the agreement that led up to the Belfast agreement. Was he party to that aspect of the agreement? Are there other parts of the agreement that the House does not know about, but which he knows about, that we shall be asked to approve following an ambush at the end of the Session?

David Trimble: The right hon. Gentleman repeats a point made during the debate, which I shall touch on again, but he is right to say that the matter is not in the agreement. People should realise that. It was never raised as an issue on any occasion during the negotiations leading up to the agreement. As far as I am aware, it never arose.
	I shall repeat the point shortly, but to those who say that this step is necessary to promote or implement the agreement, I say sorry, but please read it. Occasionally, when people make comments, I have to re-read the agreement to try to find the basis for them and often I cannot find it. That is an important point.
	Another red herring was introduced when the Secretary of State repeatedly asked what was the position before 1997. Of course, we should not forget that the issue simply did not arise before then. In two Parliaments, the person elected to represent West Belfast did not take his seat, did not come anywhere near the place and did not seek any facilities, and I dare say that most Members, whatever Bench they sat on, did not turn their mind to the issue, because it did not arise.
	The issue arose after the 1997 general election, however, because the two Sinn Fein Members elected made it clear that they would come here and use the facility whereby people enter the Palace before taking their Oath. Necessarily we all do so, and they wanted to use that foothold as a basis to establish a substantial bridgehead and put themselves in a position to conduct God knows what operations, whether of a political or other nature. Of course the Speaker had to consider that matter according to the law and according to practice, and she produced the ruling. The question of what happened pre-1997 is irrelevant.
	Another red herring, which is also irrelevant, is the fact that Sinn Fein Members sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly. They participate in the administration of Northern Ireland and do so alongside me and other Members who sit on this Bench. That happens, but again it is not relevant. That takes us to a key point: historically, Sinn Fein was an abstentionist party. It was abstentionist because it did not believe in politics. It was part of a republican movement that wanted to achieve its objectives not politically, but purely by violence.
	Consequently, Sinn Fein did not participate in elected bodies and refused to take its seats either in elected bodies in Northern Ireland or in the Irish Parliament or this place, but over the past number of years the republican movement has retreated from abstentionism. Indeed, it has also retreated from republicanism. Although some Members have introduced republicanism to the debate, in no real sense is the modern Sinn Fein membership republican, but that is another issue. Whatever arguments there may be on that point, Sinn Fein has clearly shifted its position on abstentionism.

Jeremy Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting case. Surely the logic of it is that he should welcome the fact that Sinn Fein wants representation in the Palace of Westminster and therefore support the motion.

David Trimble: I am well aware of the logic of that argument, and I will deal with it shortlyalong with the points made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, who presented what I considered to be the only coherent case for the motion.
	As I have said, Sinn Fein and the republican movement are clearly moving away from abstentionism. The Sinn Fein Members took their seats in the Dail, and also came into the Assembly, which was a very significant act. Coming in, and accepting partition and the consent principle, were massive concessions by republicans, when viewed from a republican position. That raises a question I touched on earlierare they really republicans?but it is a peripheral issue, floating around in the background.
	The argument that can be presented in favour of the motion constituted the burden of the intervention by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire. It is that we are dealing with a process of transition, and that it is therefore desirable to draw people who have hitherto been involved in violence but whom we hope and believe are now turning to the normal democratic political process into that process, and bind them into it. If that involves their coming into the Palace of Westminster, it is a good thing.
	Members may have various views. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said that violence was an undertone, and spoke of the difficulties that that presented to those who must deal with these arrangements. Again, however, I suggest that we consider the republican perspective. It is difficult for Sinn Fein Members to represent walking into this building as a step in the direction of a united Ireland; geographically, it is clearly a step in a different direction. In that sense, it could be argued that it is a good idea to involve them in the processa point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough. The crucial question is this. If the Sinn Fein Members are to be involved in the process, on what terms do they enter it? Herein lies the flaw in the Government's approach. Like others who have spoken, I think it will be a good day when Sinn Fein representatives sit on these Benches and participate in debate. I dare say that if the motion is passed it will be only a short time before we see a certain bearded figure disporting himself on the Bench just beyond the Bar of the House, knowing that he can return to Belfast, West and tell people there that he is still abstaining; but I nevertheless think that it will be a good day when the republicans take their seats, thus involving themselves in an aspect of our British democratic processas long as it is done on a proper, clear basis.
	Let me now touch on not just the motion, but what could be described as the process generally. As was said last night during our debate on decommissioning, it is crucial for us to be clear about the principles on which we proceed. It is crucial for us to make it absolutely plain that there must be a demonstrated move away from violence, and an unequivocal commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I know that this is a transition period, but we must be clear about the principles involved.
	It would be fatal to our hopes of bringing about a peaceful and democratic future to allow those who have been involved in violence in the past to think that the rules will be waived or adjusted so that they need make no hard choicesto think that they can sneak into the process, and that no one will confront them with such choices. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough said, it would be very nice if questions were to be put to them about the use of their allowances and so forth; but will such questions be put? Will any rigour be exercised? Who can believe that it will, when the Government are bending the rulesdistorting the rulesand taking unprecedented action in allowing these Members to enter the House? By all means let us make it clear that they are welcome to take their seats, but let us also make it clear that they must do so on a coherent basis.

John Gummer: Is this not wrong ab initio? Let us leave aside the rigour. The whole allowance will be available to people who will be doing only part of the job, which will suggest to those who come here on those terms that the rest of the job is not importantbut it is, in fact, the real reason why we are all here.

David Trimble: That is a valuable point, with which I agree. If my comments seemed to point in a different direction, I misled the right hon. Gentleman. When I spoke of sticking to the rules, I included Madam Speaker's ruling in 1997, which I think is right and should be adhered to.
	If we are to proceed along the Government's desired path, the question of the Oath of Allegiance becomes the relevant one, and I understand why the right hon. Gentleman raised it earlier. It too has entered the debate as, in some respects, a bit of a red herring, in that it has been discussed in connection with the monarch. Although that aspect is important, there is more to the Oath.
	The best context in which to view the Oath is perhaps to be found in a judgment delivered recently by the European Court of Human Rights on the application by one of the gentlemen concerned. I refer to the gentleman who was returned to serve as Member of Parliament for Mid-Ulster, but has not yet done so. The court said that the requirement for elected representatives to take an Oath of Allegiance to the monarch
	forms part of the constitutional system of the respondent State, which, it is to be observed, is based on a monarchical model of government. For the Court, the requirement that elected representatives to the House of Commons take an oath of allegiance to the reigning monarch can be reasonably viewed as an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles which support, inter alia, the workings of representative democracy in the respondent State . . . In the Court's view it must be open to the respondent State to attach such a condition, which is an integral part of its constitutional order, to membership of Parliament and to make access to the institution's facilities dependent on compliance with the condition. 
	I think that that view of the Oath is right. It refers to the person of Her Majesty, but it goes beyond that: it is an acceptance of the established constitutional order, our democratic principles, and the idea that things must be done in accordance with those principles. There is no difficulty here for a republicanan honest republican.

Douglas Hogg: I well understand that a reasonable person could arrive at that interpretation, but given that interpretation there is no argument, in principle, for not reformulating the Oath to make it say more precisely what the court described as a reasonable interpretation.

David Trimble: Indeed. It would be perfectly reasonable for the Government, if they wished, to reformulate the Oath so that it spelt out all the things implicit in it. It should not present an obstacle to any honest republican, because at its heart is a statement that the person concerned accepts the existing legal order and democratic process and that, if he or she seeks change, it must be done peacefully, democratically and legitimately.
	That, of course, is precisely what we want the republican movement to do. We want it to make plain, not just implicitly but in all its actions, that it will pursue its objectives by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Here again the Government have made a mistake. Rather than maintaining a position that would nudge the republicans towards acting coherently and honestly, they are conniving at a dishonest fudge that will carry serious long-term dangers in encouraging among republicans the belief that they can bend the law and get away with it. Who knows where that might take them?
	Let me repeat what I said earlier. If we want the political process in Northern Ireland to proceed, we should certainly support the Belfast agreement and seek its full implementation; but we should stick to that agreement. Let us not have little add-ons that suddenly come out of nowhere. It is not the first time that that has happened. It happened with the legislation to allow people to sit in this House and simultaneously to sit and hold office elsewhere. That was never part of the agreement. That was never part of a negotiation.
	We believe that that earlier provision came fromI am sorry that the Leader of the House is unable to be here; he dropped me a note apologising for his unavoidable absencea series of moves by Sinn Fein in the last moments of the negotiation, when it saw that an agreement was emerging that was uncomfortable for Sinn Fein. It sought desperately to try to get some added advantage and made approaches to the Irish Government. The Irish Government were open about that because they published a letter, but it is reasonable to believe that Sinn Fein may have made approaches at the same time to the British Government.
	Sinn Fein raised a number of issues. Among them was that of dual membership: of being simultaneously in the Dail and elsewhere. Alternatively, it also asked the Irish Government whether Sinn Fein Members elected to serve for constituencies in Northern Ireland could have facilities available to them at the Dail in Dublin. I have no doubt that they would have liked to sit and to debate in the Dail but they were willing simply to be in the placethe position that will be produced by the Government's motion.
	To my knowledgecorrect me if I am wrongthe Irish Government have resisted and refused that. That quest for a novel status within Parliament has been turned down by the Irish Government, who have been more rigorous and honest than our own Government on this issue. It shames me to have to say that.

John Reid: I have been listening very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. I take it that his reference to dishonesty was a group reference and not a reference to me individually. In all fairness, before I make my winding-up speech, I should ask him if he expressed a view when my predecessor consulted him on the extension of facilities to Sinn Fein.

David Trimble: I find the question curious because I have no recollection of saying anything other than that I opposed that. If there is anything to the contrary, I would be willing to say so. I am sorry to say that I have stood here before and heard Governments misrepresent my position. I hope that that will not happen this evening as well.

John Reid: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not suggest that I am misrepresenting his position. I am talking about a consultation that took place in January 2000. I may have misinterpreted his position in that, but I ask him to reflect before making the imputation that we gave no consideration to it.

David Trimble: It would be much better if the Secretary of State, instead of playing with the House, gave us the detail.

John Reid: I quote:
	I am writing with reference to your letter of the 12 inst. proposing the granting of access to facilities at Westminster for Sinn Fein MPs who do not wish to take up their seats.
	Our views on this matter were clearly voiced to the Prime Minister and yourself at our meeting yesterday. It is the view of my Party that the action Government is proposing is premature. While you are correct in your assessment that political progress has been made that progress has been facilitated by this Party agreeing a sequence of events with Sinn Fein to implement in full the Belfast Agreement. This Party
	that is, the right hon. Gentleman's party
	has honoured its obligations under the Mitchell Review but it has yet to be seen if Sinn Fein is to honour its obligations.
	I would therefore urge Government to postpone tabling any Motion with regard to this matter until such time as actual decommissioning has commenced and been verified by the International Commission on Decommissioning. It is that action and the continuing decommissioning of weapons which will demonstrate Sinn Fein's true commitment to their obligations to peace and democracy contained in the Belfast Agreement.
	I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman should not now be able to reach a different decision. He may have his own views on the process and the pace of that, but I think that there was an imputation throughout what he said that we had disregarded and acted without considering the positions that would be taken by his own party and the various other parties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) replies, as there has been a full quotation from that document, it would be helpful to the House if the Secretary of State agreed that it should be placed in the Library.

John Reid: indicated assent

David Trimble: I would have appreciated it more if the Secretary of State had, prior to tabling the motion, consulted us about that motion. Had he done so, I would have expressed a view, which would have been precisely the view that I have expressed this evening. If there is a development in thought and greater clarity in what I am saying tonight compared with the contents of the letter then, I ascribe it to further reflection and perhaps the diplomatic nature of the letter on that date, but what I am saying now is what I think this Government should do. Had they consulted, they would have received that advice.

Edward Garnier: Is it not indicative of the regrettable attitude that the Government appear to take on this serious issue that the Secretary of State was willing well into the course of this debate to produce a document out of his pocket and then to seek to trip up the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly capable of looking after himself, but it strikes me as deeply regrettable that documents come whipping out of back pockets. The Government should have laid their case out fully at the outset this afternoon.

David Trimble: I might be tempted to say something about it being partisanship, but not preceded by any other phrase or term. It is a rather partisan approach, but well and good. The Secretary of State is entitled to do it. I hope that we have dealt with it.
	I remind the House of the point that I was making because we took a detour from it. We should stick to the agreement. We should not have these add-ons. I gave the background of one add-on that came from discussions at the tail-end of the agreement between the Government and Sinn Fein. I suspect that the origins of this measure lie there, too. The question arises: if the origins of this measure lie in the dying moments of 10 April 1998, why has it suddenly come up without prior consultation? There was prior notice perhapslast Thursday, I received noticebut no consultation. Why has it suddenly come at the last moment, at this time? What special reasons have led the Government to introduce the motion? Please would the Secretary of State not just trot out in response the fact that we have had a beginning of decommissioning. If that were the reason, I would have expected to hear about the motion earlier.

John Reid: It has happened at this time precisely because of the conditionality of the right hon. Gentleman's initial response, that condition having been met.

David Trimble: The one thing that I am confident of is that the motion has not been caused by anything that I have said. The Secretary of State is wrong to suggest that. If he wants to say that the Government have brought this forward because of a beginning of decommissioning, let him say that, rather than imputing it to me.

John Reid: indicated assent

David Trimble: Well, there are ways and ways of saying it.

Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Trimble: No. I am not going to take more interventions on that point, even ones intended helpfully.
	I do not want to labour the point, but we should stick to the agreement. This motion is not part of the agreement. Let the Government explain why they are introducing something that is not part of the agreement, that will damage the process that we are engaged in, that will not be helpful and that will not achieve the laudable objective of bringing the republican movement fully into the democratic process, which we can do only on the basis of an exclusive commitment to peaceful and democratic means.
	That commitment has not yet been fully apparent. That is demonstrated by the poster on policing that my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) read out and by the fact that only a few weeks ago, the republican movement decided to republish without any further commentary an article that it wrote exulting in the murder of a Member of the House. That conjunction of events is most regrettable. I am sorry that the Government are proceeding in this way, at this time.

Kate Hoey: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and to hear him confirm a point that I made in an interventionthat tonight's motion formed no part of the Belfast agreement.
	I wish to oppose what my Government propose tonight. I do not doubt their motives, but I doubt greatly their judgment of what led to the motion. I also question why it has been introduced at this stage. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked why it has been introduced now, just before Christmas, without proper consultation. Why is it being slipped through just before we rise for Christmas? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not answered those questions. If the motion is about decommissioning, as he confirmed from a sedentary position a few moments ago, why was that not made clear as soon as the so-called decommissioning took place?
	Several hon. Members have made good speeches with which I agree, especially the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who spoke hardly a word with which I disagreed. It is important to point out to all the people watching our debate in Northern Ireland that although the motion has been portrayed as a matter for the House and as a free vote, there will not be a free vote tonight. Ministers have been called back and there will be a Whip on all the payroll vote, which exceeds 100. When the vote is called, I hope that many of those right hon. and hon. Members might still exercise their consciences and vote against the Government; but if the motion passes, people should know that it was not as the result of a free vote.
	Some hon. Members have said that the motion will move the peace process forward. They have implied that it will ensure, somehow, that IRA-Sinn Fein are moved forward. My concern is with the perceptions of the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland and how it is feeling tonight. I am especially sad, given the speech made recently by the Secretary of State in which he drew attention to the alienation that the pro-Union community feels, that he is pushing the motion tonight, when nothing appears to suggest that the peace process will collapse if it does not pass.
	There have been historic developments in Northern Ireland in the past few years, and I supported the Belfast agreement. I welcomed the setting up of the Assembly and the fact that IRA-Sinn Fein took their seats under the same agreement as the other parties. That was an attempt to bring some normality to politics in Northern Ireland, but it is important to point out that IRA-Sinn Fein recognise the centrality of Westminster. They say that they want to come here, even if they do not want to come into the Chamber. They also said that they would never go to Stormont, but they are now in Stormont. They also said that they would refuse to give up the claim to Northern Ireland, but they have had to accept that.
	The Belfast agreement has had many positive effects. It is especially sad, therefore, that the motion, rather than moving the peace process forward for IRA-Sinn Fein, will move it back for the pro-Union community, which already feels that small extra concessions beyond the Belfast agreement have been made to the nationalist community, including dual membership and Northern Ireland's exemption from the introduction of party funding rules. Those issues had nothing to do with the Belfast agreement and were additional to everything else that the pro-Union communityand all people who believe in law and orderfound difficult to accept, such as the release of terrorists from prison with little being given in return.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the hon. Lady include in the list of concessions made to Sinn Fein-IRA that are not part of the agreement the recent amnesty that the Government offered to IRA terrorists on the run from justice who have never faced the courts in Northern Ireland or in any other jurisdiction? They will be permitted to return home to their families without facing justice, which is a gross injustice to the innocent victims of terrorist violence.

Kate Hoey: I share those views and it is a real shame that that will happen, but all those people who have had to leave Northern Ireland under the threat of violence and knee-capping have no amnesty. They will not be able to go back home and spend Christmas with their families.
	Although I disagree completely with what the Government are trying to do tonight, something may be gained from recalling that IRA-Sinn Fein has moved away from classic Irish republicanism and adopted almost a John Redmond position. That will not go down very well with the members of IRA-Sinn Fein. It is unfortunate that one of the leading members of Sinn Fein will not be able to watch this debate tonight on television, because I am not sure that Cubawhere he is enlisting the support of Fidel Castrohas the parliamentary channel.
	On the question of finance, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said that IRA-Sinn Fein were rich and did not need the money. It is worth pointing out that since 11 September the funds sent to IRA-Sinn Fein from America have not flowed as quickly and, taking into account the visit to Cuba as well, that might mean that they need the extra 70,000.
	There are many reasons why I do not think that the motion is right politically, but the fundamental issue is the question of a two-tier Parliament with two types of Members of Parliament. We should not allow people to use the facilities of the Palace of Westminster, such as the Members' dining facilities, the Library and the Members' Lobby, without being Members of Parliament. I have been told that they would even be able to come into the House and stand behind the Bar. We cannot have two types of Members of Parliament.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties that we face is that the motion might send a message to people outside the House of Commons that Back Benchers are of so little import that they can be treated as the lower of the two tiers of Members of Parliament when it suits the Government?

Kate Hoey: Many people outside the Palace of Westminster are very cynical about politics and politicians from all parties, and that will be precisely what they will take from the motion tonight.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) made a good intervention about Members of Parliament being here to serve their constituents in Parliament as well representing Parliament in their constituencies. It was suggested that those who voted for IRA-Sinn Fein Members knew that they would not take their seats, but what about all the people who did not vote for them and now have no representative? They will now see public funds being made available for members of IRA-Sinn Fein to come here and use all the facilities without representing the voters in any way. That is undemocratic and wrong. Every Member of this House should be equal and, if the House supports the motion, it will be saying that we can break the rules when it suits us. It will not ruin the peace process if we reject the motion and I urge all decent, ordinary Members to vote against it tonight and give a vote for democracy.

Andrew MacKay: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). The House listened so attentively to all that she had to say because she has immense practical experience of Northern Ireland, and I agreed with every single word that she said.
	Many hon. Members want to contribute, so I shall be brief in explaining to the Government why Conservative Members feel such anger and annoyance at this motion. The same sentiments were clear in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, and by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
	The Government have acted in a shabby manner. The timing is disgraceful. The exercise reminds me of Jo Moore. The Government have sought a way to slip out something embarrassing, nasty and expensive in terms of votes, and they have decided to do it just before Christmas. They hope that the press and the public are thinking of other things, and that hon. Members will not be around. The process has been very shabby, quick and short.
	The official Opposition first heard of the Government's intention last Thursday, and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that his party first heard about it on the same day. There has been very little time to table amendments or to consider the motion. This is an absolutely classic bounce.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that doing something to help the peace process just before Christmas is a very good thing?

Andrew MacKay: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall explain why I think that the Government's action is counterproductive to the peace process, and why it will not help the peace process one iota.
	The second shabby element is the role of the payroll vote tonight. This is not a free vote for Labour Members. The Leader of the House made it clear when he was extensively cross-examined last Thursday during business questions that he expected Ministers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and others on the payroll to be here tonight to vote. Therefore, any suggestion in Northern Ireland or elsewhere that this debate shows the House of Commons at its best, and that Labour Members will have a free and independent vote, is entirely wrong.
	I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who confirmed that Liberal Democrat Members will have a free vote. The same is true of Conservative Members, but not of Labour Members.

John Gummer: Is my right hon. Friend surprised at the Government's actions? After all, the motion would admit to the House of Commons the ideal Member of Parliament as far as Labour party is concernedsomeone who can be in the House but who can never either vote or speak against the Government.

Andrew MacKay: That is a probably a perfect illustration of the sort of hon. Member that the Prime Minister would like on the Labour Benches. However, the more serious point is that the Government fear that they will not get the motion through if they do not whip the payroll. That is why Ministers have been brought back from abroad. There will be a full payroll vote tonight to force the motion through.

Lembit �pik: If a vote that requires Conservative Front Benchers to withdraw from the bipartisan agreement is considered to be free, will the right hon. Gentleman say what does not constitute a free vote for the Conservative party these days?

Andrew MacKay: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members have been whipped to be here because this is important business, but we have been given a completely free vote. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), the Opposition deputy Chief Whip, is in his place. I am sure that he would confirm that if he cared to come to the Dispatch Box.
	The second reason for anger is that there is an easy solution to the problem. If Sinn Fein Members were to take their seats after taking the Oath, we would not need this motion. If those hon. Members are serious about representing their constituents, playing a full role in our parliamentary democracy and even influencing events here, that is the logical way for them to proceed. It is deeply regrettable that we have not insisted on that course of action.
	Instead, we are going to have a two-tier system of MPs, as the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich and for Vauxhall, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), pointed out. That is reprehensible and unacceptable. No good reason has been given from the Dispatch Box as to why that is being allowed to happen.
	Equally, the motion is an insult to constitutional nationalists in the House. I refer to those hon. Members who belong to Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party and the Social Democratic and Labour party. All those hon. Members have deeply held views about being part of an independent Wales or Scotland, or of a united Ireland. However, they can take the Oath because they do not feel that it undermines their positions in any way.
	If those hon. Members can all take the Oath, I see no reason why Sinn Fein Members cannotapart from the fact that they have secured a wonderful publicity coup in being given a different tier of membership of the House. I am afraid that the Government have fallen into the trap completely, and that they have given Sinn Fein that publicity coup, at the expense of the SDLP, the constitutional nationalists and other democratic parties represented in this House. That is another example of shabbiness.
	The third reason for our anger was well illustrated by what Baroness Boothroyd said on the BBC's Today programme this morning. I shall not repeat what she said about why the motion was wrong, or about why she believes that circumstances have not changed since she made her original ruling. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has already explained all that very fully and correctly. However, I remind Ministers that Baroness Boothroyd went on to say that she could not understand why, in the four intervening years, the Government had not consulted members of other parties in the House to see whether the Oath could be amended, or whether there was a way to allow Sinn Fein Members to take their seats. There has been no consultation at all. I find that strange and unfortunate, and it makes me very cross.
	Several hon. Members have posed a perfectly legitimate question and asked why the Government have tabled the motion now. The hon. Member for Vauxhall was right to point out that, if the Government are responding to decommissioning, the original decommissioning verified by General de Chastelain took place some months ago. The hon. Lady asked why it has taken so long to bring the motion forward.
	So far, only initial decommissioning has taken place. Most hon. Members were appalled when the Secretary of State said earlier today that there has been decommissioning, as if that meant that all arms had been decommissioned. I remind the House once more that the Belfast agreementwhich the Opposition strongly supportrequires the so-called loyalist and republican paramilitaries who are signatories to decommission all illegally held arms and explosives over a two-year period. We all know that they have singularly failed to do so. Only now, very belatedly and after much pressure from the First Minister and others, has there been some limited decommissioning.
	I hope that all hon. Members want further decommissioning to take place. However, in the wake of 11 September and the unfortunate incident with the FARC terrorists in Colombia, further pressure must be brought to bear on Sinn Fein-IRA and the so-called loyalist paramilitaries who have not decommissioned a single weapon. We have had more than enough carrots and we now want a little more stick.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does not he agree that the process has undergone a quantum leap that should be welcomed in the interests of peace throughout Ireland?

Andrew MacKay: I think that there has been a modest move, belatedly, in the right directionI do not define it as a quantum leap. We do not know how many illegally held arms and explosives have been decommissioned. I suspect that not many have been yet; I do not quibble with that, provided that there is more to come. However, there is no sign of more decommissioning. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that this sop to Sinn Fein-IRAthis further carrot, this further undermining of democratic politicians in the Provincemakes it less rather than more likely that further decommissioning will take place, and will therefore be counterproductive to the peace process. That is another reason why the motion is mistaken.
	Recently, the process has been virtually all take by Sinn Fein-IRA and very little give. That puts great pressure on the Ulster Unionist community as well as on the constitutional nationalists and others in the Province. Whereas the Ulster Unionist community and the constitutional nationalists have stuck rigidly to the Belfast agreement and fulfilled all their obligations under it, the paramilitaries have not fulfilled their commitments, particularly on decommissioning. The suggestion that Sinn Fein Members could take up facilities and use taxpayers' money for office allowances in this House was no part of the Belfast agreement. That has been accepted in this House after debate, albeit with reluctance from the Government Dispatch Box.
	Does the UnderSecretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is on duty at the Dispatch Box, understand how undermining it is if one side fulfils all its obligations under the Belfast agreement, which underpins the peace process, and the other side cherry picks and is then given even more cherries to chew, which is the effect of the motion before us? It is counterproductive, demoralising and wrong.
	I hope that when we come to the vote there will be enough Labour and Liberal Democrat Members to ensure that it is a free vote, to take the motion on its merit and throw it out where it belongs.

Malcolm Savidge: The official Opposition have indicated their extreme distaste for making special provision for Sinn Fein. In his speech, which was, as ever, thoughtful and thought-provoking, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) expressed similar reservations. I, too, feel extreme distaste for making special provision for Sinn Fein. However, I see a solution to the anomalies different from the one suggested by Conservative Front Benchers.
	I also feel extreme distaste for many of the compromises that have had to be made in relation to the Good Friday agreement, particularly on prisoner releases. That hardly needs explaining at a time when we are involved in an international campaign against terrorism. But when I compare the Good Friday agreement with the decades of violence that came before it, I am certain which is the lesser of two evils. I would go furtherI am certain that it is a positive good. Of course, it needs to be improved on, and we must work to improve on it. Of course, Sinn Fein in particular must do much more, especially on decommissioning and on ceasing all the remaining violence in which it is involved, as must all the paramilitaries. When I listen to some Sinn Fein spokesmen, I could wish for fewer demands and more in the way of delivery.
	I was disappointed to hear Conservative Front Benchers talk about deserting bipartisanship. In response to the pertinent intervention of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), they seemed to imply that they might edge away from saying that they would give up bipartisanship. I hope that that is the case, because bipartisanship remains fundamentally important.
	Even so, I have been disappointed over the past few years that Conservative Front-Bench Members have on occasion given the impression of being prepared to support all the popular bits of the Good Friday agreement but of opposing all the difficult bits. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that there are difficult choices. One gets the impression that on occasion those on the Conservative Front Bench have been dodging the difficult choices. If we are going to talk about cherry-picking, as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) did, it sometimes seems that Conservative Front Benchers have been guilty of that.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is hard to see what might change if the Conservatives abandoned that bipartisanship? They seem to have been happy to vote against a raft of legislation that has gone through in previous months, and I am at a loss to know what they mean by abandoning bipartisanship.

Malcolm Savidge: I would be happy to have guidance from Conservative Members on what they mean.

Crispin Blunt: This party has supported the Belfast agreement but has, for a considerable time, reserved the right to criticise its implementation when things go badly wrong or are handled badly. I refer in particular to prisoner releases and the absence of any reciprocal concessions in terms of decommissioning from Sinn Fein.
	The press has decided that we are walking away from bipartisanship; we are not. The Government have walked away from bipartisanship because of the way in which they are carrying out the process. It is perfectly proper for us to do our duty in this place and criticise the Government when they deserve it.

Malcolm Savidge: I think that it has been accepted in earlier exchanges that bipartisanship has always involved the possibility of some criticism. However, I thought that it was agreed that we would leave the decisions on decommissioning to General de Chastelain. He has made his decisions; decommissioning has started, and we wish to see it progress rapidly.

Alan Duncan: Given that the motion is not part of the Good Friday agreement and that there has been no consultationit was simply imposed on the House when it was announced last Wednesday or Thursdayhow can the actions of the Labour party be described as bipartisan?

Malcolm Savidge: Whatever our disagreements on this issue, my request to the official Opposition is that they try to maintain basic bipartisanship on as many issues as possible.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford on one point. He drew a distinction between not taking the Oath and not taking seats. He made the point that Sinn Fein Members say that, irrespective of any change to the Oath, they do not intend to take their seats. However, it is perfectly proper to say that, although the motion refers to not taking seats, not taking the Oath is central to the debate. The 1997 ruling by Speaker Boothroyd specifically referred not to whether Members took their seats but to whether they took the Oath.
	I wish to concentrate on the Oath. I believe that we should review the Oath without regard to Sinn Fein. Indeed, I would go furtherI believe that the House might have reviewed the Oath if it had not been for sensitivities over Northern Ireland and Sinn Fein.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: As that is not what my hon. Friend is being asked to decide, will he tell us whether he intends to support the Government or not?

Malcolm Savidge: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that I shall come to that point in due course. To sustain interest, I shall try to leave the point until later in my speech.
	It should be remembered that the Oath of Allegiance does not, as most of the public probably believe, derive from the old feudal oaths of fealty of the House of Lords. The excellent research document in the Library shows that it derives from three oaths, all of which stem from the reformation. They are the Oath of Supremacy of 1534, the Oath of Allegiance of 1605 and 1609 and the Oath of Abjuration of 1701. All those oaths related to the maintenance of the Protestant monarchy and the Protestant succession. At various stages, they also included other disqualifications or discriminations on religious grounds.
	During the 19th century, those disqualifications were gradually reduced to permit Catholics, Jews and members of other religions to become Members of Parliament without difficulty. Then, of course, after the famous case of Charles Bradlaugh, those of no religion were permitted to become Members of Parliament. Until 1997as the Leader of the House pointed outthat did not mean that people who were fully and properly elected were refused other things. They were allowed to sit below the Bar of the House, although not to speak or vote.
	Although the 1997 ruling took account in one respect of a previous decision in 1924, it was in effect a new ruling and was understandable in the circumstances. There was no ceasefire and it was judged that there was a real terrorist threat. There were valid reasons for the fears expressed at the time by members of stafffears described earlier by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire. Those fears persist to this day. The ruling was understandable at the time, but in some ways, it was temporary and unusual. It was made before the Good Friday agreement and the ceasefire.

Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that, in the light of continuing republican extremist terrorist activity, there is no threat at present? Is he really prepared to tell the House tonight that there is no terrorist threat anywhere on the mainland?

Malcolm Savidge: There is a terrorist threat from those bodies that are not party to the Good Friday agreement. Most people would agree that there is a threat from the Real IRA and various dissident groups.
	I repeat that, in some ways, Sinn Fein and Northern Ireland have delayed the whole issue of review of the Oath. The Oath is an anachronism: it grew wholly and solely out of the European wars of religionthe wars between Catholics and Protestants that disfigured Europe for two and a half centuries, but which have been over for more than two centuries.
	Some of us have the impression that the House sometimes takes a while to respond to changejust as some of us have the impression that its lifts take a while to respond to the button. However, it might not be unreasonableafter two centuriesto start thinking about changing our rules. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made eloquent and perceptive interventions earlierone is always inclined to flatter people who make an intervention that is almost exactly the same as one had planned to make, but who express it better. He asked whether, if a Membernot necessarily from Northern Ireland, but from any part of the countrywho is properly elected to the House happens not to be a monarchist but a republican, it would be proper for us to say that they should not be allowed to take their seat.
	I have a clear view on that question. Indeed, I should go further: in our population, there are a certain number of cranks, oddballs and nutters. They have a right to be represented[Hon. Members: They are.] No doubt many people would say that they are over-represented in the House.

Jeremy Corbyn: They are certainly well represented.

Malcolm Savidge: As a brief aside, the new Leader of the Opposition has not been paid sufficient credit for one of his first great achievements: at a stroke he managed radically to reduce the number of bizarre extremists on the Conservative Back Benches. However, I digress.
	If an eccentric were to be properly elected to this placefor example, someone who was a passionate Jacobite or someone who, for some other reason, did not agree with the present succession to the monarchysurely he should have a right to be here. I go further: even for those of us who, as democrats, believe that we should remain a constitutional monarchy for as long as that is the wish of the majority of the population, it can still seem strange that one's first duty here should be to declareor appear to do sothat one will look after the interests of the monarch rather than those of one's constituents and of the common good of the whole population.

Simon Thomas: Most of the public think that the eccentrics have already been elected to this place.
	Surely the hon. Gentleman is arguing for no oath. Should not the election of a Member to the Houseby whatever system we decidedetermine whether they take their seat?

Malcolm Savidge: I shall leave the hon. Member in suspense as to precisely what I shall recommend, but he may not be far wrong.
	I respect the fact that for some elected Members the monarchy is a symbol of the nation, and that for them the Oath of Allegiance is deeply meaningful. However, I also respect the fact that for other Members the monarchy may seem to be a symbol of wealth, power and privilege. They may feel that the greatest responsibility of the House is to look after those who are weak, poor and powerless. We should respect both views. We should also respect the feelings ofI suspecta considerable number of Members who feel that the current wording of the Oath is meaningless and that what it asks them to do when they first arrive here is not completely honest. That needs to be considered.

Gerald Howarth: Is not the purpose of the Oath that Members should undertake to owe allegiance to their country, and that Her Majesty the Queen happens to be the sovereign of this country? Other countries have presidents and perhaps we, too, are going down that roadI hope not. However, that is the purpose of the Oath. Mr. Doherty made it clear on the radio this morning that he does not owe allegiance to this country because he believes ours to be a foreign Parliament.

Malcolm Savidge: The point that I have been making, based on the history outlined in the Library research document, is that the Oath had nothing to do with constitutional democracyas suggested by the right hon. Member for Upper Bannor with general loyalty to the country. The Oath derived simply and solely from issues relating to the Protestant succession to the thronethat is all.
	Should we adopt alternative forms of oath and attestation, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley)? Should we have no oath or attestation, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and others? Should membership be by right of election, as it is in the European Parliament and as I would favour?
	The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out that when we set up the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, we created a further inconsistency by demanding the Oath of Allegiance in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Some of the charades that went on during the establishment of the Scottish Parliament brought both that Parliament and the monarchy into disrepute. I hope that we can reconsider some of those matters.
	I take the point thatas the right hon. Member for Upper Bann pointed outthe European Court of Human Rights did not rule against our Oath, but I still believe that the Oath goes against modern democratic principles. The matter is not merely one of abstract theory; it has practical consequencesand not only for Sinn Fein Members who do not want to sit in the Chamber at present in any case.
	There was a disgraceful example when my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)the Father of the Housesuffered an injury to his Achilles tendon. Despite that, he gallantly came to the House for the election of the Speaker, but was then incapacitated and warned that he should not attend the House as the injury might become permanent. The 1997 ruling made allowance for that, so he was still allowed to enjoy the facilities, but because he had been unable to take the Oath, he was not allowed to support early-day motions or to take part in other activities. If a Member happens to be hospitalised immediately after an election, it is wrong that his or her electors should be effectively disfranchised unnecessarily.
	I repeat that I am not saying this in response to those in Sinn Fein who do not want to take their seats at present, although I hope, with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, that they will gradually do so. I am saying that, in voting for the motion tonight, I will be asking the Leader of the House and the Modernisation Committee to consider oaths of allegiance and attestations of allegiance in general. I hope that, as many hon. Members have said, it will be made absolutely clear that the Register of Members' Interests should apply to all elected Members, irrespective of whether they have taken the Oath or their seats. I hope not only that the paramilitaries will make progress towards peaceful, democratic politics, but that Parliament will make progress towards modern, democratic politics.

David Trimble: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intervened on me earlier and read out part of a letter that I had written. My recollection is that he stopped immediately after the phrase
	until such time as actual decommissioning has commenced.
	That recollection is correct, and it is particularly unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not quote the next sentence, which refers to the need for
	the continuing decommissioning of weapons,
	or the point towards the end of the letter where it states:
	In addition to these points until such time as the total commitment to peace and democracy is evidenced.
	It was unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not read the entire letter, especially as hon. Members were asking him to do so, so that people could assess it in the round.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that that is a matter of debate, not a point of order. I understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has, as I suggested, made the letter available to hon. Members by placing a copy in the Library. As I said before, it is for the benefit of the House that a document that has been extensively relied on should be made available, and I express the hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that it is now laid upon the Table.

John Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no hesitation in acceding to the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, which relates, in particular, to the reference to
	the continuing decommissioning of weapons.
	In fact, I did read out that section, although he is correct to say that I did not read out the second paragraph. My point was not to try to pretend that he had agreed to something in Stormont[Interruption.] As I said, I did read it out, as Hansard will show. I read out the words continuing process as well. I was contesting the implication that we had acted dishonestly by never asking people for their views on this matter, but I am more than happy to accept fully that the words that I read out give the implication which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to give to them, which is that it was not just the first act of decommissioning, but the continuing process of decommissioning that he, no doubt, would wish to examine and make his judgment on. That is precisely why I said that he was perfectly consistent in taking a different view now from the one expressed in the first section, and Hansard will show that as well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That contribution is also more a point of debate than a point of order, but I am grateful to the Secretary of State for making the letter available. It is now up to right hon. and hon. Members to judge the issues for themselves, as the document is now available to the House, and it would be better if it were laid on the Table officially.

Peter Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The letter refers to other correspondence. The better to enable hon. Members to make a judgment, could you ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to place all the correspondence in the Library?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The ruling that I gave relates to a document that, in itself, was relied on to a substantial extent in debate by the Secretary of State. Other documents that flow from that must be pursued by hon. Members in the other ways available to them.

Douglas Hogg: The House is grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indication that the document should be placed in the Library. As one of those hon. Members who heard the whole exchange, I am bound to say that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did a serious injustice to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and I am glad to think that that injustice will be put right.
	This has been a distinguished debate, although I do not think that the House was holding its breath when the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) was explaining how he was likely to voteI and all other hon. Members knew in advance.
	The motion has undoubtedly aroused a great deal of emotion on both sides of the House because many of us feel intensely about it. We are being asked to make concessions to those to whom we owe nothing at allindeed, in respect of whom we have a deep sense of contempt and, dare I say it, loathing. Many of us knew the three hon. Members who were murdered. Ian Gow and Tony Berry are two who come to mind, and they are but a tiny number of those who have been murdered in the Province and elsewhere by those for whom the Sinn Fein Members are apologists. It is in no sense surprising that this debate has engendered the emotion and disgust that has been manifest on both sides of the House.

Martin Smyth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to three Members, but there were four, and I look forward to the day when the House will remember them properly and place their coats of arms alongside that of Airey Neave. I am here today because Robert Bradford was murdered, and we have already seen Sinn Fein, through An Phoblacht, glorying in that, yet it is said that it is going down the road of peace.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is wholly right. What I meant to say, and I apologise to him, is that I knew three Members. I did not know Mr. Airey Neave, but I did know the three other Members. I made the observation in that context, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
	We start, therefore, with a proposition on which most hon. Members can agree: there is deep revulsion at making concessions to those who, in a democratic state, have chosen a career of terrorism, intimidation and murder. That is extraordinarily difficult for us to accept.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the coat of arms of Airey Neave, whom I knew, although not as a fellow hon. Member. I knew Ian Gow, and I knew Tony Berry slightly. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any hon. Member who wishes to vote for the motion tabled by the Leader of the House should take a moment to look up at the coat of arms that commemorates Airey Neave and consider whether it would be right, in the light of that appalling murder within the precincts of the House, to support the motion tonight?

Douglas Hogg: Yes, that would be a perfectly proper thing for right hon. and hon. Members to do, and they should reflect on the names of the other three hon. Members who have died and perhaps, even more importantly, on the thousands of people who have died in the Province and elsewhere. Those are very important issues, but revulsion, which I share, is not conclusive of the issues before the House.
	The first question that we should address is simple: whether it is right, and in what circumstances it could be right, for us as a House to substitute our own judgment as to who should or should not be representative of any constituency. My opinion is that it must be a general proposition, to which I admit of almost no exception, that it can never be right to deny to the constituency that may have elected a person, however unworthy that person may be, the right to be represented in the House by that person. I have three reasons for that.
	First, as a general proposition, it is for the electorate in a democracy to choose its Members even if they are bad and wicked people. That is an essential part of democracy. Secondly and rather differently, I come to a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and by others. If one excludes a person who is chosen by the electorate, one deprives all the electors in that constituency of representation. That is an extremely undesirable state of affairs.
	The third reason was provided by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and I agree with him on this point. If one encourages people, such as Sinn Fein Members, to be present in the House, one draws them out of the political ghetto in which they have existed for many years and exposes them to contrary views that are held strongly and vigorously by other people. That is part of the process whereby one may procure change on the part of those drawn into the House.

Edward Garnier: As my right hon. and learned Friend will know from personal experience in relation to his late father and to Mr. Tony Benn, this House used to exclude peers who stood for election and those who were already Members of this House but who succeeded to peerages. That exclusion was acceptable because it applied across the board. My problem with the motion has been mentioned many times. The Government are attempting to create a different kind of membership of the House. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will come to that point with vigour, but I hope that he will undertake to express to the Government our concerns about a two-tier system of membership.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. In fact, I shall vote against the motion for the very reason that he has identified. However, I want to establish the groundwork, because I believe that we shall have to make some important changes.
	As a general proposition, to which I admit of very fewin fact, noexceptions, I argue that, when a constituency chooses a Member, that Member should be admitted to the House. We may thereafter disqualify that person if, for example, he or she becomes a felon or convicted criminal and thus incapable of performing his or her function. The general point is that any Member elected should be admitted to the House.
	Another issue follows from that. Are there exceptions to that general proposition if, for example, a Member is a terrorist or refuses to take the Oath? I shall deal with both those points. If a Member is a terrorist, it is perfectly respectable to argueI have heard this point in the pastthat one should never deal with terrorists. They have chosen a career of murder, intimidation and terrorism and should be outwith the law. I have some sympathy with that perfectly respectable view, but it is not what we have been doing for the past 10 years.
	For the past 10 yearsin the House and elsewherewe have been trying to reach an accommodation with Sinn Fein-IRA and, although I do not suggest that there is a total parallel, we have been urging dialogue and accommodation on countries such as South Africa, the Lebanon and other countries in the middle east. Although the examples are not the same, there are some parallels on which one can usefully draw.
	In Northern Ireland, we have admitted into the Executive Mr. McGuinness, whom I understand to be very close to policies of murder. Therefore, it seems to be late in the day to draw back and say that, as a matter of principle, we cannot have such people in the House. Their presence here is the inevitable consequence of the processes that most of us have supportedI honourably except the Ulster Unionistsfor the past 10 years or so.
	We are entitled to say that Sinn Fein and its associates have not fully performed all that was asked of them and that we should exclude them on those grounds. However, that is not a matter of principle, but of detail and not a firm foundation on which to stand. Therefore, odd though it may beand I have every cause to abominate terrorismI wish to see Sinn Fein Members in the House and exposed to the democratic debate that is the ordinary currency of our life in this place.
	That brings me to a different question that must be confronted. Are we right to stand on the Oath as a reason for excluding such people? We must return to first principles. If it is wholly wrong to exclude from the House those who have been elected, it must surely be wrong to erect an oath as an obstacle to their presence here, because that is to negate the purpose of the election.
	I am not, in any sense, a republican; I am a constitutional monarchist and I value the Crown and the person of the sovereign. They are an important part of our constitutional settlement. However, if I ask myself whether I define my obligations and duties as a Member of Parliament with reference to the Crown, the answer is no. My duty as a Member of Parliament is to the constitution as it is settled, changed only in accordance with the law. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann read the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights and he was right. My other duty as a Member of Parliament is to speak and vote in accordance with my opinion and my settled judgment, and not otherwise.

John Gummer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the other problem with which he has to deal is that the nature of the Oath can mean that there is one belief that a person may not hold if he wishes to become a Member of the House of Commons? In today's world, it is difficult to suggest that there is one thing that one must not believe if one wants to be a Member of Parliament. I find that very hard to accept.

Douglas Hogg: I think that I agree with my right hon. Friend and that we come at the issue from the same direction.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: rose

Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Lady wish to intervene?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Yes, because I might not come at the issue from the same direction. The problem is not that people are excluded because we decide that they must take the Oath, but that they have decided to exclude themselves because they do not wish to take the Oath. What then is the burden of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument?

Douglas Hogg: I am going to come to that; it is a fair question. Although this point does not apply directly to the hon. Lady's argument, it is pertinent to it. Let us consider the position of Mr. Tony Benn, a distinguished former Member of the House, or even of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). They are republicans and I suspect that they have great difficulty in honestly taking the Oath as couched in its present language. I seem to remember that the hon. Gentleman took the Oath with his fingers crossed, and I do not wish to create a situation in which honest and honourable republicansand people are perfectly entitled in this state to be republicanshave to strain their consciences in the way that I have described.

Edward Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend and I are both Queen's counsel. When we became Queen's counsel, we took an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Does he extend his argument to our position then? Is it his view that republicans should be entitled to become Queen's counsel without taking it?

Douglas Hogg: Yes, of course it is. I do not want to create constraints that stand in the way of honest and honourable people who work within the framework of the constitution and wish to change it in accordance with the law. I do not wish to establish an oath that prevents them from holding an occupation or that obliges them to lie. That is not a proper thing for us to do. We should either have no oath at all or one that honourable people can honestly take without straining their consciences. I very much hope that the House will be willing to consider the structure of the Oath and will either abolish it altogether or move forward in the way that I have described.

Nick Hawkins: While my right hon. and learned Friend advances an argument that I understand, but with which I respectfully disagree, will he at least consider the possibility that the four Sinn Fein Members decline to take the Oath not for an honest and constitutional reason, for which he gives others credit, and not because they want to change our arrangements by law? The real reason, as opposed to the ostensible and public reason, why they will not take the Oath is because they wish to change our arrangements by force as terrorists, by the bomb and the bullet.

Douglas Hogg: I do not know what the real reason is, but I am in favour of putting those people on the spot, and I was coming to that.
	I am trying to set out the propositions on which I stand and that cause me to take a view different from that expressed by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Do they cause me to vote for or against the Government? In the end, I will vote against the motion, very much for the reasons advanced by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. If we are going to make a change, it should not be for the benefit of four individuals who deserve nothing of us. Furthermore, we should not make a change for their benefit when we know that they have not properly performed their part of the deal and when, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is part of a secret compromise about which we know almost nothing. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) saidin this respect, we are as one, and very nice it is, toowe would create two classes of Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) spoke eloquently on that.
	It is my belief that we should be willing to accept Sinn Fein Members in this place. We should not allow the Oath, in its present structure and form, to be an obstacle to that. We should be ready to change the Oath, or to abolish it. Then they can choose what they want to do. They can become Members of the House and conform to the obligations and take the benefits, or they can decline to become Members of the House and refuse the benefits. In that way, we can be certain of one thing: no one would be able to say that the rules and practices of the House have stood in the way of them being able to take their seats. Ultimately, that is a matter for their constituents, not for us.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: As this seems to be the evening for truisms, I hope you that will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I begin with one or two short statements. I am proud to be a Member of Parliament, and I am proud to be British and a member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not a fashionable attitude, but it bears repetition from time to time. One of the sad things about the debate is that we have not so far received any of the answers to which the House of Commons is entitled on such basic and important matters.
	We have heard some interesting speeches but there is a singular lack of clarity. I want to know why Her Majesty's Government think it necessary to introduce a motion that will radically change the status of Members of Parliament in such a way that there will be a two-tier system, with two completely different types of Member present within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. I want to know why this matter has not been fully debated before the motion was placed on the Table and why Members of Parliament were not given a full explanation.
	I am extremely fond of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but he did himself and the House of Commons no favours by partially quoting from a letter, which seemed to imply that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is taking a different line from that which he took at the beginning of the argument. Even listening to the part of the letter that was read out, it appeared to me that the right hon. Gentleman was simply saying politely what he has said consistently all along. Indeed, it added neither light nor information to the debate.
	We come back to something that is tremendously important. One hundred years ago, I would not have been welcome in the Chamber because my father did not own property until he was well into his 50sand then only courtesy of a libel actionand as a woman, I would not have had a vote. When I speak here, I am conscious of the fact not only that Parliament consistently changes, but that it changes its rules and procedures and improves, and sometimes does not improve, the way in which it behaves. It does all that with the consent of its Members not just in one House, but in two.
	Those changes are brought about because there is a clear public interest. It does not mean to say that we always come up with the right answers or that the general public have the faintest idea how we propose to change procedure, but we are duty bound in this House of Commons to represent the important aspects of democracy for which we were sent here. That means that we cannot, of ourselves, suddenly decide for political reasonssome of which owe a great deal more to the intransigence of certain groups than they do to the genuine political interests of the people of the United Kingdomthat there will be two different types of Members of Parliament.
	The Members of Parliament who are excluded from this place are not excluded because they were not honest with their electorate. They said that, if elected, they would not come here. Whatever happens between them and their constituents, their constituents cannot say that they did not know on what terms they were electing a particular Member. Those Members of Parliament are not excluded because they will not swear the Oath of Allegiance. The Oath has been greatly debated tonight, but it does not seem to have occurred to hon. Members that it is an oath to the state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It should be very important to us. Those Members are excluded because they choose, for political reasons, to exclude themselves.
	I have no problem with that. If I choose to exclude myself from political organisations to which I am elected, who is to say me nay; I still have the vestiges of a brain even after many years in this place.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Lady represents her constituents who do not vote for her. She is a doughty champion of their rights. The problem with her argument is that the electors who did not vote for the Sinn Fein Members of Parliament are also unrepresented here. That is a serious problem.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: If I thought that I was not representing the whole of the constituency of Crewe and Nantwich, I would not come here. I do not see myself as simply a representative of one group, nor have I ever said so. The debate about the Oath is a side issue and it takes us away from the real burden of the debate.
	The Government tabled the motion. They did not tell us why and they have not yet given an explanation. They tried to suggest that it is a matter of minor importancea mild rearrangement of the rules of no real value. If that is so, why did the Members of Parliament concerned need to go as far as the European Court of Human Rights to get a definition of the way in which we operate in the House of Commons? They did that because they know that not only is it constitutionally important but it matters to the role of a Member of Parliament.
	I had no idea that a Labour Government would make what is, if I may say so, the unacceptable and indeed shameful suggestion that Members of Parliament can be divided in a way that would be totally unacceptable to the electorate if they were aware of what we were doing. That suggestion demeans the role that we are elected to fulfil.

Martin Smyth: rose

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I will not give way because I have taken too long. I have been sitting here since half-past two because I have a fundamental belief that when I vote against the motion tonight, I will be voting not against a small political rearrangement that is convenient for members of Her Majesty's Government but against a motion that demeans the House of Commons, and I am deeply angry that it should have been brought forward in this way.

Ian Paisley: I rise to oppose this attempt to change the rules to allow IRA-Sinn Fein Members to enjoy the privileges of this place while abdicating their responsibilities. The House is being asked to create two types of Members: those who uphold the rules of the House and take the Oath, and those who refuse to do so, but who will be allowed to enjoy certain benefits of the House, while abdicating their responsibilities.
	As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, it is Sinn Fein Members' own fault that they do not enjoy those privileges. I have lived through many elections, and I have heard those men and that woman advocate their particular political philosophy. They said, We will not go to the House of Commons. We will not swear an oath to a foreign Parliament. We will not sit there and represent our constituents. SDLP Members have attacked them for that, asking why people would vote for candidates who will not even go to Parliament. They have made their choice.
	The serious question that I must ask is, what is the reason for this motion? Why, at the end of this year, are we to be found debating this matter? There is another side to this coin, and I should like to see it. I should like to know what the deal really is. Before 1997, Sinn Fein never used its resources for the benefit of anyone because it was so busy bombing and killing Protestant and Roman Catholic constituents that it had no time to represent them. Suddenly, it seems to have time.
	The House should remember that we have devolved powers to Northern Ireland. Those four Members are already Members of the Stormont Assembly, and one is a Minister in the Stormont Cabinet. He does not need to worry about the education of his constituents because education is a devolved matter and he is the Minister of Education. This talk about Sinn Fein having a real desire to help people by coming to the House is false. They want a platform on which to meet the people who come to the House and to forward their aims, and they want the House to finance that.
	The previous Speaker of the House, on 14 May 1997, said:
	I feel certain that those who choose not to take their seats should not have access to the many benefits and facilities that are now available in the House without also taking up their responsibilities as Members.[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 35.]
	I agree. The present Speaker has also advocated that view. But what has happened? The motion discriminates against Members such as myself who have taken the Oath and who sit in the House. It says, You, who have done what you are told, taken the Oath and obeyed the laws of the House, don't have a full say. It will create a category that contains four people, which is strange when one considers who those people are and what they have done.
	I was amazed last Thursday when I heard the Leader of the House say:
	I make no apology for having a peace process that provides a relative peace and stability that Northern Ireland did not know beforehand. If we want that peace process to continue and we want to avoid murders in the future, we have to show our willingness to enter into that process.[Official Report, 13 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 1018.]
	Does anyone here really think that if we allow these Members into the House, the bombing, the killing and the beatings that still go on will stop?
	The Leader of the House said that he was glad about the relative peace in Northern Ireland. Last Friday, the Belfast Telegraph, which is a strong supporter of the agreement and all that it stands for, carried an article stating that bombing by all republicans had returned to pre-ceasefire levels. What do Members think about that? We are told that, to help advance the cause of peace, we should pass the motion tonight.
	The Members who want to come here include, of course, Mr. McGuinness, who remains a member of the IRA army council and was promoted to become its chief of staff. He retains his position on the council along with Thomas Murphy, Brian Keenan, Gerard Adams, Martin Ferris, Patrick Dohertyanother Sinn Fein member who wants to come hereand Brian Gillen. Let us look at Mr. McGuinness's history. He was in charge of operations during the trouble in Londonderry. In the McGuinness era of IRA control in Londonderry, there were 87 murders. Five of the victims were innocent children: Kathryn Eakin, a Protestant and nine-year-old child; Gordon Gallagher, a Roman Catholic and nine-year-old child; Bernadette McCool, a Roman Catholic, another nine-year-old child; Carol Ann McCool, a Roman Catholic and four-year-old child; and Kathleen Feeny, a Roman Catholic and 14-year-old child.
	I have never heard Mr. McGuinness at any time utter one word of regret for the murder of those children; he is completely silent. A journalist questioning him on television about the Omagh atrocity asked, If one of your constituents came to you and said that they had information about who was responsible for Omagh, what would you advise them to do? He said, I would certainly not advise them to go to the police. That is in the public domain.
	We have established that Martin McGuinness was to all effects leading the IRA army council and was busy in Londonderry. Members should know for what type of people they are proposing to bend the rules. One of the saddest calamities in Londonderry was the death of Frank Hegarty, who was murdered on the instructions of Mr. McGuinness. Mr. Hegarty had worked for military intelligence and knew where some of the IRA's most important arms and explosives were hidden in the Irish Republic. When the Irish police raided them the Army, fearing that Mr. Hegarty's cover would be blown, pushed him away to England. Mr. McGuinness then arrived on the doorstep of Rose Hegarty, and told her that he wanted to talk about her son and how he could return.
	Twice a week for 13 weeks, Mr. McGuinness dropped by, the family met him and they drank tea together. He assured the mother, Rose, that if Frank came home, he could sort the matter out and all would be well; a firm assurance for a mother's heart torn about her son. She persuaded her boy to come home. A rendezvous was arranged by Mr. McGuinness; afterwards the body was found in a roadway in Tyrone, a bullet through the head. That is in the public domain. Many journalists, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, have written moving stories about that murder.
	Mr. Adams has blood on his hands. As recently as this September, he has threatened young nationalists who have dared to suggest that they would join the new Police Service. This is what he said:
	I think they
	that is, officers drawn from the nationalist community
	will be accorded exactly the same treatment the republican movement accorded to the RUC. No more, no less.
	What was that? The murder of more than 300 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
	Gerry Adams was a member of the first Provisional IRA delegation that came to London to negotiate with the Conservative Government. He was released with other members of the IRA to do that. When he returned, he carried out what is known as Bloody Friday, when 22 bombs were set off in Belfast with no warning, killing 11 people, including a child.
	Jean McConville, another victim whose name ought to be familiar to the House, was executed by the IRA because she was a Roman Catholic who helped a dying Army man. Like any other woman, she went and put his head on her lap, wept over him and helped to comfort him. She was executed on the command of Gerry Adams. Her body has never been found.

David Winnick: As someone who is very far removed from the Christian tradition, I look upon Jean McConvillewhether I should do so is another matter, because, as I said, I am not of that faithas one of the finest Christians whom I could imagine. She was a true Christian. I believepossibly unlike the hon. Gentlemanthat if it had been an IRA man who was dying, she would have done the same.

Ian Paisley: I quite agree. As I have always said, there is no difference between the tears of a Roman Catholic mother and the tears of a Protestant mother. They are both mothers, and they both have the same feeling and the same love.
	Every hon. Member knows that we are dealing with ruthless men. They are interested not in peace, but in getting their way. As Martin McGuinness said:
	I apologise to no one for saying that we support and admire the freedom fighters of the IRA.
	He has not changed. Now we are asked by the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House to allow those people to be brought into the House and given a special privilege. That is wrong. No matter who they are, there should be no special privileges in the House. There are hon. Members who have legitimate views about the Oath and about the Protestant ascendancy and other matters. However, when we enter the Chamber, we all stand on a common platform.
	One of my friends from Belfast, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), recalled his maiden speech. I was present on that occasion. He said that he had not expected things to happen the way they did. Neither did I. I did not think that I would be leading five Members of Parliament in the House, just one less than the official Unionists. That, my friend, is perhaps the biggest miracle that has happened in Northern Ireland during these sad days.
	I trust that hon. Members will think hard. Reference was made to the Rev. Robert Bradford, who was shot dead by the IRA. That Saturday morning, I was to have been shot dead, too. The police found in the house adjacent to my home everything ready to assassinate me that day. Fortunately for me, I had an early morning prayer meeting, which is common in the Church to which I belong. I was out of bed at six o'clock and away to prayer. The gunmen did not get me, but when I looked upon the body of Robert, I said to myself, The bullet could have been for me. Sometimes politicians in Northern Ireland are severely criticised, but they can always answeran Ulsterman can always answer and fight his cornerbut the House should remember that there is a cost to be paid in trying to serve the people of Northern Ireland. Some of us are trying to do that as best we can, but this proposal does not help us in our efforts.

David Winnick: I hope that, in expressing my support for the motion, there is no need for me to emphasise how I loathe the murders and violence of the IRA. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), whose viewpoint is very different from mine on the Good Friday agreement and other matters in Northern Ireland, read out a list of some victims. I completely agree with his sentiments. As we have been in the House for many years and have been involved in many Northern Ireland debatesobviously, he has been much more involved than I could beI hope that he is aware that I demonstrated time and again during the years of violence that I was completely opposed to the IRA and to the loyalist murder gangs on the other side. Indeed, during the early 1980s, I opposed the current Mayor of London when he argued as leader of the Greater London council that there should be negotiations with the IRA. I could see no reason for such negotiations, as the only item on the table for that organisation would be Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom.
	During the years of violence, it was made clear that it was legitimate to argue for a united Ireland. Ministers in the previous Government made it perfectly clear that it was legitimate to have the unification of Ireland as one's political objective, but illegitimate to try to bring about that aim with violence and terror. As I said in an interventionthis returns to the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrimif the yardstick in respect of Commons office facilities is to be the background of all or some of the four Sinn Fein Members, the same would apply if they were willing to come into the House and take the Oath. I assume from the remarks that he made when he listed the victims that he would be as opposed to such Members coming into the Chamber as he would be to their having office facilities.
	As I understand it, however, that is not the view of the Opposition, who say that if the four Members, who were elected in the same way as we all werethere is no doubt that they are elected Members of Parliamentwere willing to come into the Chamber and take the Oath, they would have no objections at all. Indeed, I would not expect them to have any objections.
	The argument and division is about whether there should be what has been described in this debate as a sort of two-tier membership. I would not describe it in those terms, but I am willing to concede the point. I am also willing to concede that it is a messy arrangement. It is not one that I particularly likeof course not; why should I? I would prefer all those who are elected as Members of Parliament, be they on the mainland or in Northern Ireland, to take the Oath, so this is not the sort of compromise that I particularly like and neither do I believe that the Government like it. Obviously, they would take the same view as the rest of usor at least most of us, with the exception of the Democratic Unionist partyin saying that these Members should take their seats. In the interests of the peace process, however, I am willing for such a compromise, however messy, to be reached.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman says that he is willing for a compromise to be reached. If he had stated in his election address that he would vote for giving 500,000 of taxpayers' money to four Sinn Fein Members of Parliament, is he confident that he would have been re-elected?

David Winnick: I shall defend my viewpoint in my constituency, as the hon. Gentleman will defend his view in his. I believe that my constituents know of my loathing of IRA violence. If the issue is raised at the next general election, it is my responsibility as the candidate to defend my position. People can then make up their minds in the usual democratic way.
	Sinn Fein Members' attitude to taking their seats in what they describe as a foreign Parliament is not unique. For a time, Sinn Fein refused to participate in a Northern Ireland Parliament; being part of a partitioned Northern Ireland was out of the question. It argued time and again that it would never be involved, yet now some of its members are Members of the Legislative Assembly. Some are Ministers and are therefore involved in the Executive. Sinn Fein has obviously changed its mind.
	We should also not forget that Sinn Fein refused to recognise the Republic of Ireland. It was recognised throughout the world, and I therefore do not expect that it was unduly worried about Sinn Fein recognition. However, Sinn Fein recognised the Irish Republic only in 1986 after much internal debate, which led to a split at the time. Now it has one member in the Dail and hopes to have a few more; we shall see after the Irish general election.
	As I said in an intervention, I do not believe that the IRA has secured victory. It was not defeated militarily; it can take whatever pride it likes from that. If we had been in a position over 30 years to defeat the IRA militarily, we would have done that. We were not involved in a game; enough British soldiers died in the process. It was obvious that the IRA could not be defeated militarily. However, it has been defeated politically for the reasons that I explained earlier. It came into existence in 1970 with one aim in mind: to bring about the unification of Ireland through terror and violence regardless of the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. That has not happened, and it is not likely to happen until a majority in Northern Ireland supports unification.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman said that one member of Sinn Fein had been elected to the Dail. Does that member take part in the Dail's proceedings under different terms from other Members of the Dail?

David Winnick: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows the answer. There is no oath in the Dail such as the one that is taken here. Since 1986, Sinn Fein has recognised the Irish Republic and it must therefore recognise its Parliament. Sinn Fein currently chooses to describe the UK Parliament as a foreign Parliament. However, if we agree to the motion and the Sinn Fein Members take the office facilities, is not it possible that they will change their minds in due course? I would welcome that.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made clear his views about the Oath. He believes that it could be changed. I made the same point during business questions on 2 December 1999. With the possibility that Sinn Fein Members might wish to take their seats in mind, I asked the then Leader of the House:
	Will she consider the possibility of a change of wording that would allow Sinn Fein MPs to take their seats?[Official Report, 2 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 434.]
	It appears that Sinn Fein Members are not willing to take their seats, regardless of the Oath. However, if they were, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I should be prepared to reconsider it. I believe that those who are elected should have every opportunity to take their seats.
	In previous times, this House was involved in a great deal of controversy about Members who wanted to take their seats but could not do so. It was not until 1829 that Catholics were allowed to come here. It was a long time from the Reformation until 1829, and it was likelyalthough I have not read the debates of the timethat there was a great deal of controversy and discussion about that. It was not until 1860 that orthodox Jewswho could not take the Christian oathwere allowed to come here. Prior to 1860, such a measure was debated but defeated in the Lords. It took some 15 or 20 years before it was finally agreed to, when Baron Rothschild could take his seat as an orthodox Jew.
	The position of Charles Bradlaugh was even more controversial. Despite being a non-believer, he was willing to come here and take the Oath but the House came to the conclusion that it would be hypocrisy to do so. He was refused admission four times. I agree that these were Members who wanted to take their seats; obviously, Charles Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, wanted to do so. But we must look at the controversy that occurred and the number of Members at the time who said that it would be quite wrong for a Christian country to allow a professed atheist into this House. At the end of the day, the law was changed. Indeed, Charles Bradlaugh lived long enough for an apology to be given to him. While we are debating a different matterthose Members who do not want to take their seatsI would say that the controversies of the past have some relationship to what we are discussing at the moment.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim is not in favour of the Good Friday agreement; he believes it to be wrong, inappropriate and a betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland, but that is not the position of the Conservative Opposition. This proposal may help the peace processperhaps it will notor consolidate what was agreed at the time; a new Government for Northern Ireland and fairness in governing on behalf of both communities. If it helps the process, I see no reason why I should not vote for the motion, and I shall do so at the appropriate time tonight.

David Wilshire: Throughout my 14 years in this House, I have taken a close interest in the affairs of the Province. Whoever has been in government during those 14 years, I have spoken up without fear or favour for a principle that I hold dear and continue to hold dear: that appeasing evil is wrong and doomed to failure.
	For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to make it clear that my views are my own, and mine alone. All members of my party tonight have the ability to speak as we will and vote as we will. What we do later this evening is entirely a matter of conscience for each and every one of us.
	Before I get to the substance of my speech, I suppose that I must declare an interest of a sort. Some years ago, the views that I hold got me on to a Sinn Fein-IRA assassin's death list. I have always assumed that at least two of the four people whom we are seeking to help tonight approved of my being put on that list. I therefore readily accept that I need to approach this subject in a calm and rational way, rather than with personal feeling and emotion.
	Whatever approach I adopt, I come to the same conclusionthat I am implacably opposed to this motion, whatever the arguments that are used and whatever the justifications that are attempted. I am against it for three reasons. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, this motion demeans democracy; this motion allows armed terrorists into the Palace of Westminster; and this motion creates two classes of Member of Parliament, when we should all be equal.
	As I said, the motion demeans democracy. If democracy means anything, it is about governance and change exclusively via the ballot box. Yet the motion will help those who support using violence to overthrow the state. Neither the motion nor the Leader of the House has set out the official line as They must renounce violence first and give up their guns and explosives.
	The Government want us to believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA are different. They are not. I had wanted to make it clear why I consider them to be the same, but I do not need to do so, because the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) achieved that far more eloquently than I can. He told the House that three of the four whom the Government want to help are believed to be members not of the Sinn Fein Council, but of the IRA army councilthey are one and the same. He also said that at least two of the four have blood on their hands: they have not only authorised and instructed the killing of others, but have been involved. The four whom the Government want us to help are terrorists. They should be treated accordingly, instead of being welcomed into the heart of British democracy.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend and I tabled an amendment that, sadly, was not selected for debate, so he knows that I agree with each and every word he has saidand I am sure that I shall agree with the rest of his speech. Does he agree that much of the debate has shown that the emperor has no clothes? Many speakers consider the people whom the Government want to help to be democrats who wish to participate in our processes, but as he rightly says, they spat in the face of democracy time after time through all their terrorist activities.

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; of course they are not democrats. They are armed terrorists who keep their weapons and explosives for a simple reason: if they cannot get their way, they will use them. If they are not like that, why do they keep guns and why would they need Semtex, save to undermine democracy as we know it? By demeaning democracy, the motion will not only let those armed terroriststhe four Members of Parliament who have never renounced terrorism or denounced violenceinto the Palace of Westminster, but will make staff passes available to them.
	Sinn Fein-IRA have twice got bombs into this building without passes, so one can only speculate about how much more murder and mayhem may be achieved if we give those people passes to enable them to pass through the security screens with whatever they like. The motion will also leave those on Sinn Fein-IRA death lists open to attack within the precincts, but I have yet to hear the Government offer any suggestions on their plans for extra security and extra protection.
	The third matter of principle is that the motion will create two classes of MPan issue that has generated much concern and much debate. There are 655 of us who believe in democracy, although we may have different views on it, but another four hold us, the House and our country in contempt. The Leader of the House claims that those of us who oppose the motion are trying to create two classes of MP, but that is utter rubbish. It hardly warrants being taken seriously as an argument.
	Currently, all Members of the House, whatever their views, are the same. The Sinn Fein-IRA four are deliberately putting themselves at a disadvantage. We are not doing that; they are doing it themselves, and it is unnecessary. Consider the position of the Social Democratic and Labour party. It wants a republic in the north of Ireland. It wants out of the House of Commons. It wants a united Ireland. I may not agree with those policies, but they are all perfectly honourable if pursued solely via the ballot box. Those who do not agree with them can vote against them, but I defend the right to believe in them.
	If members of the SDLP can pursue the dream, as they see it, of a united Ireland through this place, why cannot Sinn Fein-IRA? There can be only one conclusion: that the SDLP has renounced violence, and Sinn Fein-IRA have not.
	Sadly, the Government have a majority which they intend to use to force the motion through. I suspect that the best that we can hope to achieve is the passing of some amendments. On the Order Paper is a group of amendments that seek to do four things; I think they should be touched on briefly before the end of the debate.
	The first of the amendments deals with the question of when the new arrangements should be brought into effect. The Government say that it should happen as soon as we return from the Christmas recess. There is a raft of amendments suggesting other times, but there is a common theme: all the amendments suggest in one way or another that if the House is determined to make the proposed arrangements, it should not bring them into effect until the terrorists have disarmed and renounced violence. If the House is determined to follow a route that I oppose, I beg it to do that only when dealing with democrats rather than with armed terrorists.
	The Leader of the House tried to suggest that amendments of this sort presented obstaclesby supporting amendments requiring decommissioning and a renunciation of violence, we were somehow placing an obstacle in the way of four Members of Parliament. There is an easy answer to that: all 659 of us should be required to renounce violence, and say that we will not hold guns and explosives. I doubt that any Member would not agree to such a requirement; only the four who are setting themselves apart consider it unreasonable.
	Amendment (m), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), would prevent the payment of allowances. If we do our arithmetic correctly, we see that the motion will give armed terrorists some 400,000 a year to further their campaign to overthrow the state. Moreover, they will not even have to account for themselves: the Leader of the House confirmed that they would not be required to complete the register. That is a disgrace.
	I am glad that the Leader of the House has now returned to the Chamber. If he will not listen to anything else said by anyone here, I hope that if he gets his way tonight he will immediately give some thought to requiring all MPs, regardless of whether they take their seats, to complete the register and be subject to the same rules as the rest of us.
	Amendment (p), tabled by me, seeks to prevent Sinn Fein-IRA staff from having access to the services and facilities of this building. As I said earlier, issuing passes to those staff will allow unchecked and unrestricted access. It will allow free access of guns and explosives to the Palace. It will also do something else which I find utterly objectionable: it will require staff of the House to assist people in their avowed intent to undermine this state. I think it dreadful to put loyal servants of the House in a position in which they are required to assist terrorists, and assist subversion.
	If the Government will not listen to the argument about staff passes, I urge them to do a number of things. If they are determined to have Sinn Fein-IRA terrorists in here wearing staff passes, they should require them to go through the security screens every time they enter the building. They should make certain that none of those peoplenone of our staff, in factcan use the facilities of the House to further terrorism. We must ensure that no one in this building is required to help Sinn Fein-IRA to undermine the state.
	Amendment (ii) seeks to put some restrictions on whom Sinn Fein-IRA can choose as members of staff. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who tabled the amendment, would agree that we could happily put that restriction on every Member of Parliament, so that we would all continue to be equal. Anyone who has a pass to this place should not be, or should never have been, a member of a proscribed organisation and should never have been convicted of an imprisonable offence. I do not see why we cannot have that requirement, even if the Government insist on their motion.
	The motion is not about enabling duly elected Members of Parliament to do their job. It is not even, as we discovered earlier, about implementing the Good Friday agreement; there is nothing in the agreement about such a measure. The motion is about surrendering to murderers, trying to appease those who have guns pointed at us and who are willing to use them, handing over millions of pounds to terrorists to help them to do their work, and forcing the staff of the House to help people of violence. Those who are in favour of the motion demean democracy. Those who support the motion are bowing down to armed killers and creating two types of MP. In my book, that amounts to appeasement. It will not work. It never has done and it never will.

Frank Field: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) but I wish to begin by disabusing him of one point. Much of the debate has been about whether we will create two tiers of Members of Parliament. We have two-tier membership of Parliament already: those who represent seats in Northern Ireland and the rest of us. It is clear from many debates over the years in the House that Northern Ireland Members run special risks and face particular horrors that the rest of us do not. I therefore wish to recast the debate and discuss whether we should create another tier of Members, and not by levelling up our actions, beliefs and aspirations to meet those of Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, but by lowering them to allow people to come in without buying the full package.
	It has been noticeable that although the Government sensibly deployed their best speaker and most able advocate to open the debate, it has run away from them. I hope that I cause no offence to those hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the motion when I say that they in their hearts probably know that they are not winning the argument.
	I have been here about 20 years. About 15 years ago, the media began one of its regular crazes, saying that no one in the House of Commons could put two words together, let alone two sentences. The Leader of the House, as he did on many occasions, led for the Opposition then and, as always, slaughtered all those before him. My normal seat, in all those barren years, was four up from the Front Bench next to the Gangway. Enoch Powell sat just the other side of the Gangway and he commented to me, after my right hon. Friend had finished, to the effect that we heard much about the lack of orators in the House of Commons, but that anybody who had ever heard my right hon. Friend speak would know that that was untrue. Although the Government were right to put their most able speaker up to try to convince the House of the wisdom of the motion, even his skills have failed to convince a large proportion of Members.

Edward Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Leader of the House signally failed to convince the majority of those who have been in the Chamber all afternoon. From his sadly brief experience of being in the Government, does the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the Government may see some sense, listen to the voices of those who have spoken tonight and withdraw the motion?

Frank Field: What happens when the vote comes is up to us. We are sent here as free agents, albeit with party loyalties, and at the end of our stewardship we have to account for how we spend our time. I would hope, given that the argument has gone against the Government tonight, that if they put the motion to a vote, they will lose. Other issues have arisen from the debate that suggest that any Government who wished to appear wise and considerate of views expressed here would bring other motions before us, shortly after Christmas, so that we can attend to those matters.

Lembit �pik: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and for the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and I am sure that his position is sincerely held. Will he accept that many of us of the opposing view genuinely and sincerely feel that it is in the interest of the peace process, on a cost-benefit analysis, to support the motion?

Frank Field: My hon. Friend, for I call him that, took half an hour of the House's time. I am more than prepared for Members on both sides to judge whether he convinced them on the argument and the quality of his judgment.
	We have spent two whole days debating issues that affect one part of this kingdom, Northern Ireland. I sat through yesterday's debate, not wishing to speak. I have sat through this debate and, happily, I have been called to speak. Unfortunately, I missed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but as she will understand, there are times when, after one has been in the Chamber for seven hours, it is necessary to leave.
	One of the themes of both debates has been the view that history somehow progresses in a line. It has been said that our job here is to push it forward and that history shows that events always move forward. I suggest that that is a mistaken view of how human events unfold before us. Indeed, if we were having this debate in the 1930s, some people would have lost the argument about the Government's line then on Nazi Germany. Some would have suggested that even though we had made a series of concessions that had not worked, we needed to make some more. On this issue, too, I caution the House to stand back for a moment from the contributions that we have heard, because underlying them is the belief that the peace process is heading in the one direction that all of us wish to support. It is suggested that the only thing that we need to do to keep the show on the road is to make more and more concessions. That might be true, but there may come a time when people would doubt that.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) set the debate alight when he said that we should not get bogged down in principle. That was a wonderful wheeze on his part, and typically British. It relaxed us all, because none of us likes to speak from points of principle. However, those who attended to his speech will have understood that it was notable for its point of high principle. The single theme that ran through it was picked up by other hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich.
	That theme is that this is not a simple little motion about whether we believe in the peace process but a crucial test of how hon. Members regard the House of Commons, and of our role in it. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the motion was a limited measure. I beg to disagree. I believe that we are discussing a most fundamental measure.
	A similar matter arose in the first Parliament to which I was elected. The then Government faced the question of whether to bring the trade unions within the law as the House of Commons defined it, or whether the unions could define the law within which they were prepared to operate. The House of Commons decided that hon. Members would set the framework within which organisations and people in this kingdom should work. I believe that the Government were right then to do that, and that today's Government are wrong to try to suggest that we should behave differently.
	Hon. Members have already noted that the House of Commons is regularly ambushed by the Government. We often hear on the radio news at 7 or 8 am that later that day the Government will announce another stage in the peace process. Such announcements always mean that the House has to make major changes to the organisation of its affairs. The House has already approved the extraordinary proposition that a person can belong to two Parliaments, even though those Parliaments have different loyalties and programmes.
	The House was given only a couple of days' notice of the motion before it today. My argument is that it changes the fundamental nature of the House of Commons, where we have the privilege to work. Hon. Members must decide whether this motion is the final throw in the concessions needed to keep the peace treaty alive, or whether we will be faced with other concessions later on, in the new year.
	The Belfast agreement used to be called the Good Friday agreement, but the name was changed when things got more difficult. The change had substance, as religion and the symbolism that goes with it were removed. An Easter agreement has extraordinary connotations, especially to people in Northern Ireland, about the resurrection and so on. Before hon. Members vote tonight, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will tell us, when he winds up for the Government, whether the Belfast agreement contained other elements that were neither made public nor debated. If so, will we be asked to approve them at some later stage?
	I am toldand I regret that I did not hear herthat my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich brought us back to the centre of the debate. How do we see the role of an MP? The Government are standing on their head when they answer that question. They seem to believe that our job here is to answer letters from our constituents and do the other good works that the majority wish us to undertake. Our constituents do not send us here for that function; they send us here to be their representatives in this Chamber. Sometimes we try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that we can make our contributions, however inadequate, to the debate and be full members of the committee.
	We undertake our work in our constituencies because human sympathy makes us want to help people who are less well placed than we are. By doing so, we learn about the process of governmentabout what is wrong and what needs to be changedand use that experience to shape our amendments and help guide our debate. It is not the essence of our work as Members of Parliament, although it is an important part. We are not here to act as very well paid social workers but to represent the views of our constituents.
	I was asked earlier whether I thought that the Government would withdraw the motion. One can but hope. As for whether the Government will pick up messages from the debate that will be valuable to their long-term survival and the well-being of our nation, the answer is yes.
	Although it is not central to this debate, many of us must have been surprised to have heard the views expressed on both sides of the Chamber about the Oath and whether its wording is appropriate. Our constitution continually and continuously evolves. The words of the Oath, which at one time might have summed up what the Oath really represented, may not necessarily be appropriate now. I suggest that loyalty to the Crown in times past would have unified us and made it easy for most of us to gain admittance to the House of Commons. Now it may be a barrier. If that is so, our constituents will want us to think about the essence of the Oath and what it is supposed to encapsulatenot in a hurried, end-of-term debate, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said, in a considered and careful way. As I tried to suggest in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), the Oath sums up our commitment to a way of life as democrats, and the House would be well advised to look at it carefully.
	For much of the time that I have spent in Parliament, the Labour party excited itself with the wonders of what it was proposing, as Labour voters walked away. They did not walk away because of a particular policy but because they thought that we were breaking what they regarded as the common decencies that sum up a wisdom that nations acquire over time. Although our constituents will probably not be particularly interested in the minutiae of the debate that we have necessarily had tonight, they will know that the Government's motion asks us to cross and break those common decencies. There is enormous danger for any political party that does that oncelet alone more than once. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends, in a proper Christmas spirit, to take what the Whips tell us is a free vote and act as though we believe it by throwing out the motion and asking the Government to come back with a much more considered programme of reformwhich we needwhen we return from the Christmas recess.

Roy Beggs: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who is acknowledged by colleagues on both sides of the House as a Member of high principle.
	This is a sad day for the House of Commons. The case presented by the Leader of the House was uncharacteristically poor; he did not produce a convincing argument to support a motion that has clearly exposed the Government's willingness further to appease Sinn Fein-IRA.
	What makes this place so special is its historyas the mother of Parliaments and of democracy. Since the awful events of 11 September, we have seen countless ceremonies in the United States at which American patriotism was to the fore. Millions of grieving citizens found enormous comfort in a shared love of their great nation and its illustrious history. I admire them for that.
	I am always struck by the sense of envy exhibited by American citizens who are in awe of our British history. For more than 700 years our parliamentary democracy has stood against those who sought to undermine it. When our forefathers in the House of Commons were challenged, they fought back.
	I fully support Mr. Speaker's ruling and, indeed, that of his predecessor, now Baroness Boothroyd. They sought to uphold and defend the rights of each and all of us. Today, however, we are being asked to roll over and accommodate Sinn Fein-IRA. If we accept the motion, it will afford privileges to four individuals who have no respect for this House, for the proud history of our nation, for our Queen or indeed for anything that can be regarded as Britishapart, of course, from British banknotes.
	Those individuals have spent their whole adult lives trying to undermine our nation. Three of them have done so through acts of murder and violence and, indeed, all three remain key figures on the IRA's army council. Despite that, Her Majesty's Government want us to accept those people into this building with open arms and to hand them several hundred thousand pounds of taxpayers' money. For what? To do good? To benefit this nation? To enhance our democracy? Not a bit of it. We all know that that access and money will be used by those peopleand their henchmento further seek to undermine our nation. Who knows for what purpose some of the finance might be used?

Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Roy Beggs: I am sorry I cannot do soI have only a few minutes for my speech.
	I am well aware that my party and representatives of other Unionist parties sit with Sinn Fein representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am also fully aware that we sit with them in district councils throughout the Province. However, the difference is that Sinn Fein members entered those forums under the same rules as everyone else[Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] Today, however, the Government are proposing to allow Sinn Fein MPs and their staff access to this place and to their allowances on a different basis from the rest of us. That is what I find most objectionable.
	Why are the Government asking us to do that? The answer is, of course, so that they can continue their policy of appeasement towards Sinn Fein-IRA. The Government are determined to feed the hungry republican tiger, no matter what the consequences are for anyone else.
	Last night, we discussed a five-year extension to the deadlines for decommissioning, despite the fact that, as we all know, that process should have been completed more than 18 months ago. Before that, there had been a conveyor belt of concessions to the terrorists with which we are all familiarprisoner releases, reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, promised amnesty for terrorists on the run from the law of the land and a review of criminal justice. The list goes on. Why? To keep terrorists happy.
	Have the Government not a prior duty to keep their law-abiding citizens and law-abiding Members of Parliament happy? The Government fail to understand that Sinn Fein-IRA will never be satisfied. No matter what they get, they will simply ask for more, and the Government, to date, have always been keen to oblige. The motion is yet further evidence of that. Christmas is almost upon us, but, when it comes to Sinn Fein-IRA, the Government are happy to play Santa Claus 12 months of the year.
	Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I have lost friends at the hands of Irish republican terrorists. We in the House remember Robert Bradford, Tony Berry, Ian Gow, Airey Neave and many others. Those distinguished Members of this House were murdered by Irish republican terrorists

Nicholas Winterton: Including McGuinness and the other fellow, Adams.

Roy Beggs: Indeed, and they are still unrepentant. Let us imagine what the great men who have been murdered would think if they knew what we were being asked to do todayor, to be more precise, what the Government intend to do to us today. The Government are forcing through the motion; there is no free vote. Those on the payroll vote have been leaning on others, and those who vote for the motion, if it is carried, will bring shame and embarrassment on themselves.
	I shall conclude as I began. This is a sad day for the House of Commons. Parliament should not be abused in this way. Gerry Adams has said openly that what the House is likely to agree to today has come about as a result of an agreement with the Prime Minister. A secret, dirty little deal has been done, disregarding long- established custom and practice in the House. I find it insulting to the House that the Prime Minister is seeking to sell out centuries of democratic history by introducing this motion, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will oppose it.

Michael Connarty: I have only a few minutes in which to speak in the debateI had hoped to be called earlierso I shall not rehearse the speech that I wanted to make. Having listened to the debate, I have to tell the Government that they must answer some serious outstanding questions before they can have my vote tonight. I had intended to vote for the motion, but much has been said about two-tier membershipa concept with which I do not agree.
	A two-tier membership is possible if Members can have their office costs and allowances in this placewe may argue about thatbut do not have to register in the Register of Members' Interests. It was clear from the opening speech made by the Leader of the House that Members have to register their interests within three months of taking their seats. If Members do not take their seats, they do not enter their interests on the register. All Members should have the right to carry out advocacy work on behalf of their constituents, regardless of whether they have taken the Oath. If they cannot represent their constituents and are not treated the same way as all other Members, we shall create a two-tier membership. I could not vote for a proposition that allowed that to happen given the fact that, correctly, we are all under the most intense scrutiny. When we deal with public funds, the public want us to be subject to even more scrutiny and they want to be aware of our interests when we speak in the House or carry out business on behalf of our constituents.
	If the motion is carried, it will present a great dilemma for Sinn Fein. It will take the Queen's shilling and it will cross the great divide between its open advocacy of republicanism and using the assets of, and taking a place in, what it sees as this foreign Parliament. That dilemma for Sinn Fein is just as great as the one before those on the Unionist Benches who do not believe that Sinn Fein Members should be allowed to come here under any circumstances.
	I shall not make the speech that I had hoped to make, but I hope that the Government will answer those questions because I am seriously in doubt as to whether I can give them my support.

Eric Forth: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has well illustrated the difficulty that the Government have brought upon themselves in this debate and with this issue. He is not the only Government Back Bencher to have voiced unease and disquiet about the motion. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and evenif I can put it that waythe hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), who started her speech by saying that she had considerable reservations about the motion, have seen the difficulties that this ill considered motion will cause.
	In the brief time available to me, I want to touch on two or three salient issues that have arisen in the debate. The first and very obvious one is the matter of timing and the matter of concessions. Opposition Members have repeatedly askedmy right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) illustrated this point as well as or better than mostwhat point there is to premature concession. What on earth is the point in what is called a peace process of making such an important concession to people with whom one is supposed to be in dialogue and whom one is supposed to be persuading further to disarm and to move towards peace? We see no sense at all in making such a concession and it is perfectly obvious that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side do not see the sense of it either.
	We have yet to receive a proper explanation from the Government as to why Ministers have felt the necessity to come to the House at this stage and offer this highly contentious concession to Sinn Fein-IRA when the Government have apparentlyunless we are told otherwise by the Secretary of State for Northern Irelandreceived no undertaking of any kind that it will give rise to further progress.
	Another issue has risen time and again in the debate, and I shall categorise it as the two classes of MP. The phrase has been used by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and by many others. The issue is simple and it highlights starkly what the debate has turned out to be about. It is the unease and unhappiness that Members feel when a measure, such as the one before us, effectively creates two different categories of Member of Parliament.
	The Members present have chosen to take their seats and to do their job in the fullest sense of the word. They do not just represent their constituents and help them with problems but exercise their judgment in the House on issues such as those that affect Northern Ireland. However, we are now being asked to accept into the Housealong with families and staffthose Members who have chosen of their own accord not to take their seats in the House. We must assume that their electorate elected them on that basis, so we cannot be told that those voters are somehow deprived by the fact that their Members of Parliament have chosen not to take their seat. The voters knew about that at the time.

Eric Joyce: As I understand it, a minority of voters in those constituencies90,000 out of 250,000voted for Sinn Fein, so the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts should surely be with those who did not vote Sinn Fein in those constituencies.

Eric Forth: I am an old-fashioned believer in the first past the post system and acknowledge its results in constituencies both in Northern Ireland and throughout the land. I was referring to the relationship between the majority who voted for the Sinn Fein Members and sent them here knowing that they would not take their seats.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne touched on the security issue. There is a distinct feeling of unease among hon. Members and, in particular, officers and staff in these buildings and precincts about who we may be inviting into our midst. In that context, the green form that we expect all staff to complete is of great relevance. It starts by saying:
	It is the Government's policy that the departments and agency will carry out a Counter Terrorist Check . . . in the interest of national security before anyone can be: authorised to take up posts which involve proximity to public figures at particular risk of attack by terrorist organisations.
	It goes on to say:
	The purpose of such checks is to prevent those who may have connections with terrorist organisations, or who may be vulnerable to pressure from such organisations, from gaining access to . . . premises, where there is a risk that they could exploit that position.
	Nothing could better sum up the risk that everyone in the precinct believes that they run if we allow on to the premises families, staff and so on of the Members who are referred to in the motion. Those people will be asked to answer the questions on the green form, including:
	Have you ever been involved in: espionage? terrorism? sabotage? . . . Have you ever been involved in actions intended to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means?
	That sounds to me like a thumbnail sketch of Sinn Fein-IRA.
	The question arisesit will ultimately perhaps be for you, Mr. Speaker, and certainly for the Serjeant-at-Arms, to determineas to how we can be satisfied that sufficient measures will be taken to guarantee that anyone who fills in the form and who is associated with the Members covered by the motion will not come under that description on the green form.
	The questions on the form continue:
	Have you ever been a member of, or supported a group or groups involved in any of the above activities?,
	and so on. The message is clear. How will we be given a guarantee that will work and hold water so that we feel secure against the possibility of such people coming on to our premises?

Tom Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Forth: No. I am about to finish.
	My final point relates to what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough said. Others also touched on the issue, and it will require some thought. What relationship will the Members who have chosen not to take their seats, whose families and staff will be able to roam the premises, have with our code of conduct and Register of Members' Interests? Will they be obliged to fill out the Register, like the rest of us? It would appear not. If they do not, will there be sanctions against them? It would appear not. We are creating another class of Member who will not be subject to the same rules and codes of conduct that rightly cover other hon. Members.
	The measure is unnecessary. The Government have given no cogent reason why we are being asked to support it now. It is dangerous because it introduces the concept of two completely different types of Members of Parliament, something that I am sure that all of us in any other circumstances would resist stoutly and definitely. In addition, the proposal raises serious security issues. I hope that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will tell us, at the very least, how the Government will liaise with the House authorities to give every guarantee that security checks and measures will be applied to the families and staff of the Members concerned if they are allowed in under the terms of the motion. We need a guarantee that they have not, and will not have, any connection with any organisation that seeks to undermine our constitutional arrangements.
	The measure is bad, unnecessary and divisive. It will not promote the peace process and we should not support it.

John Reid: I shall start by giving a direct answer to a direct question. The staff of any Member who uses the facilities will be vetted in the normal fashion.

Eric Forth: That is what we are worried about.

John Reid: In that case, the right hon. Gentleman need not worry. Decisions will be put to Mr. Speaker in the normal fashion and made in the normal fashion.
	Not surprisingly, there has been a great deal of heat in tonight's debate. There has also been a great deal of light, not least in the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Walsall, North (David Winnick), both of whom are consistent contributors to debates on Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] They may not be regarded by some on the Opposition Front Bench as people to be listened to, but most Members of the House would agree that they make a major contribution to the debate, particularly by alerting us to what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire called the beginnings of a possibility of a sea change that assists in drawing Sinn Fein further into the political process. They both pointed to the republican movement's gradual but perceptible shift over the decades into political engagement, first, in the Dail, then in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive and now in the precincts of this House.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) also displayed a broad and deep knowledge of the peace process, highlighting in particular the risks taken by the previous Tory Government. I fully accord them the accolade that they deserve for the role that they played in getting the peace process under way. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that although there was a great deal of controversy about those measures at the time, they were undoubtedly the building blocks for the peace that we have now. Despite all its imperfections, that peace is light years ahead of any situation that previously held in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman, like the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), asked whether Sinn Fein Members will be subject to the same scrutiny as other Members. As I said, the answer is yes.

Alan Beith: rose

John Reid: If the right hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will continue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said that it is important to remember that we have a process by which paramilitaries, both loyalist and republican, are hesitantly and reluctantly movingbut nevertheless movingaway from violence. Part of that process was the Conservatives' efforts to engage, at one stage even in secret, in talks with the Provisional IRA. That was another risk taken by a Conservative Government, and one of which we are now all the beneficiaries.
	A number of standard objections were made that I want to address very briefly. One is that the motion will create two classes of Member. Let me make it absolutely plain that the two classes of MP were created by the 1997 decision. In response to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I shall read from the 1989 edition of Erskine May. I realise that I have been in trouble for reading from documents tonight, but this one might be more enlightening. It says that
	although until he has taken the oath a Member may not sit and vote, he may vacate his seat by the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds and is entitled to all the other privileges of a Member (but not to his salary), being regarded, both by the House and by the law, as qualified to serve, until some other disqualification has been shown to exist.
	That was the position up to 1997. Far from creating two classes of MP, we are reducing the differences between the two classes that were created by the 1997 decision.
	It galls me tremendously to hear Conservative Front Benchers, who have spent the past four years demanding that we create two, three or four classes of MP in the House by limiting the voting rights of Scottish and Welsh MPs and possibly those of London MPs, suddenly discover their crocodile teeth beneath their crocodile tears and their allegiance to one class of MP when it suits them. It is nothing but a camouflage for what they were doing.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) cannot stand away from his seat. If he wants the Minister to give way, he stands in his place; he does not move across the Chamber.

John Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I give way, it will be claimed that I have not addressed the arguments that were made in our debate.
	We heard the argument that Sinn Fein Members stood on an abstentionist ticket, and that constituents knew what they were getting before they voted for them. That overlooks two things[Interruption.] I am trying to respond to the debate.

William Cash: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please sit down?

Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State is obliged to give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am chairing the proceedings. Does the Secretary of State wish to give way?

John Reid: I am attempting to respond to Members who were present during our debate.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Secretary of State wish to give way?

John Reid: No, I do not, Mr. Speaker; I wish to respond to Members who advanced arguments during our debate.
	The argument about Sinn Fein standing on an abstentionist ticket overlooks two things. In the four constituencies where 90,000 people voted for Sinn Fein, nearly 100,000 people voted for other parties. Like all elected Members, Sinn Fein MPs have a responsibility to represent their entire constituency, including those who did not vote for them.
	Another line of argument, in much of what has been said, is that it would be fine if only Sinn Fein came here, accepted the Oath and entered the Chamber. That is rather like saying that the problem with Irish republicans is that they are Irish republicans. Of course, that creates a problem, but we are trying to grapple with it.

David Burnside: rose

John Reid: Let me just turn to Opposition Front Benchers

Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be good enough to confirm that the debate is open ended and does not necessarily need to end at 10 o'clock? The Secretary of State therefore has plenty of time to take interventions, should he wish to do so.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the debate is open ended.

John Reid: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Secretary of State sit down for a moment? Giving way is at the discretion of any hon. Member who is addressing the House. The Secretary of State indicated where he is going on the question of giving way.

John Reid: There are three reasons why the House should support the motion. First, the House should support anything that moves people who have previously been in conflict into dialogue and democratic entrenchment. We cannot solve decades and centuries of conflict by choosing to deal with other people. The only way to end a war, guerrilla or otherwise, is by agreement with those who have been involved in it.

David Burnside: rose

John Reid: The second reason is that there are constituents who should be supported[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.

John Reid: There are constituents to whom we should extend the franchise and the right to have representation in the House.

William Cash: rose

John Reid: I shall end with two quotes. First:
	The sensible democrat helps the embryonic democrat to find the way to democracy[Interruption.]
	This is a marvellous display of democracy. I repeat:
	The sensible democrat helps the embryonic democrat to find the way to democracy.[Official Report, 8 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 145.]
	Those are not my words; they are the words of former Prime Minister John Major. What a pity there are not more Members of his mettle on the Opposition Benches tonight. Making peace, he said, is a messy business. However, it is necessary and it leads to enormous benefits for all the people in this kingdom.

Keith Hill: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:
	The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 112.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 357.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. Robin Cook and Mr. Secretary Reid may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.
	Amendment proposed: (t), in line 1, leave out
	chosen not to take their seats
	and insert
	not affirmed or sworn the oath of allegiance.[Mr. Quentin Davies.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 350.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: (x), in line 7 at end, add:
	but all such facilities will be withdrawn if the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland confirms that any organization with which such Members are associated has been involved in any act of terrorism..[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 347.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put:
	The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 189.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, with effect from 8th January 2002, those Members who have chosen not to take their seats and thus do not qualify to participate in the proceedings in Parliament may use the facilities within the precincts of the House and the services of departments of the House, and may claim support for their costs as set out in the Resolution of 5th July 2001, relating to Members' Allowances, Insurance c., and the allowances relating to travel within the United Kingdom for Members, their families and staff.

Orders of the Day

International Development Bill [Lords]

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be considered tomorrow.[Angela Smith.]

PETITIONS
	  
	Rural Petrol Stations

Angela Browning: I wish to present two petitions. The first is to the House of Commons from the rural residents of the United Kingdom and it declares that
	rural petrol filling stations provide essential services for the motorists living in rural areas, and to rural communities as a whole; that such businesses are subject to predatory competition from large oil companies; and that such competition should not be allowed to deprive rural residents of the services provided by rural filling stations.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to investigate the practices of large oil companies to take such action as is appropriate to prevent further large-scale and widespread closure of rural petrol forecourts, and to set minimum requirements for forecourt services.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Angela Browning: The second petition is to the House of Commons from the petrol retailers and motorists of the United Kingdom. It declares that
	major oil companies in the United Kingdom are alleged to set the prices of their own petrol and diesel products at selected forecourts with the aim of forcing competitors out of business; and that motorists should not have to pay more for their essential fuel purchases because of where they choose to live.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward legislative proposals to control the powers of major United Kingdom oil companies to engage in predatory pricing.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Secondary Schools (Kent)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Angela Smith.]

Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise an issue that is of huge concern to my

David Clelland: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What about the other petition?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have a record of only two petitions on the order of business in front of me.

David Clelland: Only one was presented.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Two were presented. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman may not have followed the detail. They were related, but two separate petitions were presented.

Joyce Quin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I expected to present a petition and understood that it was part of our order of business this evening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We appear to have no record of that fact. It was certainly not on the agenda that I saw earlier in the day. If there has been a misunderstanding, I am sure that that can be remedied at an early date, but the order of business to which I am working refers only to the two petitions that were presented by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). I apologise to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), but I am sure that the problem can be put right very soon.

Ann Widdecombe: Before that unexpected diversion, I was saying that the issue is of massive concern to many of my constituents in Kent. It comes up every year when the time comes round for parents to indicate their order of choice for schools in Kent.
	Kent is in many ways exceptionally fortunate. It has a wide variety of schools between which, theoretically, parents can choose. Kent has grammar schools, single-sex grammar schools, mixed ability schools, high schools and quite a wide range of specialist schools. On the face of it, parents have a fortunate choice, but in reality the opposite is true. Too many parents find that the system militates against being able to choose a school for their child and to have confidence that that choice will be respected.
	It used to be the case that two separate lists ran for grammar schools and high schools. Parents could indicate an order of preference for grammar schools and then an order of preference for high schools. The adjudicator ruled, however, that the lists must be combined. If the children of parents who want them to take the 11-plus and who put down a grammar school first fail, those children are classified as late entrants to the high school that they have listed second and go to the bottom of the heap for consideration. If the high school is popular, successful and over-subscribed, they have no hope of getting in. Is that a covert way of discriminating against grammar schools?
	There was a major campaign in Kent to get enough signatures to trigger a ballot. That campaign failed abjectly because most people in Kent want to keep grammar schools. It seems to me that the arrangement now in place is another way of deterring children from taking the 11-plus.
	The wider issue of parents in rural areas applies to all parents, in particular to those who seek their child's admission to mixed ability schools or high schools. Every year, one or two villages are told right at the start that their children will not be admitted to big successful schools such as the Cornwallis school and Angley school, both of which are in my constituency and are heavily over-subscribed year on year. Every year, children are being told that they will not be considered simply because they live a certain distance from the school.
	I want to ask the Minister very specific questions. Heads say that they more or less have to apply the criterion of distance. Although, theoretically, they can set their own criteria for foundation schools, in reality those would be capable of legal challenge because the local education authority sets in stone, for its own schools, the requirement to use distance as the criterion. That idea comes, in turn, from the Department, so there is a general view that distance is a must. If, instead of rejecting everybody outside a certain radius because there were already too many applicants from inside that radius, a school turned the situation round and simply asked whether it was the nearest school to the childwhich is also about distance, but a different sort of criterionwould that practice be sustainable?
	We have the ludicrous situation that there are children in outlying villages who cannot get into their nearest school because nearness is a comparative and, every time, they are discriminated against in favour of children who more or less live on top of the school. If one lives in a town, one has a choice of schools, but if one lives in an outlying area, that choice is restricted so long as distance is used as a criterion. Parents in villages in my constituencyin Staplehurst and East Farleigh in previous years and in Marden this yearhave had inflicted on them the anguish of being told from the start that their children will not be able to go to the large, popular schools of their first choice.
	Because the grammar schools proceed to cream off a certain percentage of the applicants, however, places become available, so parents are put through all the anguish of thinking that places will not be available, only to find that they are. Kent has put forward a solution to that, and asked that parents be allowed to indicate preferences after the 11-plus has been taken and the creaming-off has been done, when the schools know how many of the children who have applied to them will go to a different school.
	Apart from those questions, there is the issue of free transport. Nonsensically, in some parts of my constituency parents will put down as first choice a school that is not their first choice. They do that so that they will qualify for free transport, because if the school rejects them, the county will supply free transport to the school of second choice, even if it is outside the distance criterion used for assessing eligibility for free transport. Parents have to play a game of bluff. They put down as first choice a school that they do not want so that they get their second choice, which they do want, and qualify for free transport. Ingenious as that may be to politicians who like playing such games, it seems to me a rather strange thing to ask parents to go through every year.
	The solution to all those problems would be to free schools to set their own admissions criteria, and not to place artificial constraints on them. It should be made extremely clear that schools can reject children who live close to them and accept those who live further away if that leads to greater parental choice across the area as a whole.
	It is not only parents and children who suffer through the present unsatisfactory arrangements: the schools themselves do too. Every year, there is the same sort of uncertainty for the schools as there is for the children. There is also public opprobrium, which stems from schools appearing to have turned their back on whole villages when, in reality, they are restricted by the criteria that they have to apply.
	I therefore hope that, first, the Minister will say that schools are completely free to set their own criteria, which would do away with the argument that enables schools to say that they have no choice but to act in that way. Secondly, will she reconsider Kent's request for parents to indicate preferences after the 11-plus has been taken? Thirdly, will she reconsider making the rules on transport more flexible? I have been on about that for many years; when I was first in opposition, I introduced a ten-minute Bill which made no progresssuch Bills do notto alter those rules. When a parent indicates a first choice, it should not be part of an elaborate game of chess but a first choice that they want to prevail over all the other choices on the list.

Margaret Hodge: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on securing the debate. I am grateful to her for giving me the opportunity to outline what the Government propose to do in the Education Bill and how that will affect parents and children in Kent. We are committed to maximising parental preference while raising standards of education for all children, which will make parents' preferences more meaningful.
	As the right hon. Lady knows, the supply of school places is a necessary element in parental choice. Each local education authority must ensure that there are sufficient school places for children of compulsory school age in its area through its school organisation plan. LEAs are required to review the position annually, and take steps to ensure that they provide sufficient school places to meet demand. The plan must be made available for local consultation and show the projected demand for places and the LEA's proposals for meeting that demand, for example, by expanding existing schools or opening new schools. She will know that in her constituency in Maidstone, the LEA plans to meet the projected increase in demand by adding 680 secondary school places by 2005-06.
	As hon. Members know, legislation gives parents the right to express a preference for the school at which they wish their children to be educated. There is a duty on LEAs and school governing bodies to comply with that parental preference except in specified circumstances. The most common reason why parents cannot get a place at their preferred school is over-subscription. Schools must publish details in their prospectus of how the available places will be allocated if there is too much demand. The LEA must publish a composite prospectus giving a summary of admission policies for all maintained schools in its area. In large areas such as Kent, there may be more than one composite prospectus. Admission arrangements are set following an annual statutory consultation involving the LEA and schools. Any admission authority consulted may object to the schools adjudicator if it has concerns about any aspect of the determined admission arrangements.
	In the case of some partially selective admission arrangements, local parents can also object. The adjudicator who takes the decisions when there is an objection is, of course, independent of the Government; we have no input to his decisions, which can be overturned only by the courts. If we followed the right hon. Lady's suggestion that schools set their own admissions criteria, it would add to the problems that I know that her constituents and families in Kent face. It would add to the chaos, produce greater differences, and there would be even less uniformity and more distress to parents and families, which I accept is what has given rise to this debate.
	This year, the adjudicator in Kent made decisions which, judging by representations to the Department, seem to have resulted in much misunderstanding and confusion among parents and schools alike. It may be helpful if I clarify their main effects. This year, Kent LEA decided to introduce county-wide secondary transfer arrangements whereby children sat the grammar school selection tests before parents stated their preferences for schools, an arrangement that had previously operated only in one area of Kent. As the right hon. Lady knows, opinion is split among Kent schools and parents over whether it is fairer to test children before or after preferences are made. She came down on one side of that argument.
	The argument has been the subject of much heated debate in the county, and some of Kent's own-admission authority schools objected to the adjudicator about the change. That was why the adjudicator became involved. In July, the adjudicator considered the objections and a counter-objection from the LEA to the arrangements of some own-admission authority schools.
	The most significant of the adjudicator's determinations on the objections were that parents must now be asked to express their school preference before entering their child for the grammar school selective test, and that all schools must adhere to the admissions timetable set by the LEA. The adjudicator took the view that, in effect, testing before preferences gave some parents two first preferences, putting them at an advantage over parents who wanted a place only at a non-selective school. I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept the validity of that argument.
	The LEA then made a number of changes to its admission arrangements to implement the adjudicator's decision, but that resulted in complaints from selective schools, which considered that the LEA was introducing more changes than were necessary. The most controversial was the LEA's decision that only those children whose parents had named a grammar school as their first preference school should be permitted to sit the selective test. As a result of those complaints, the LEA referred details of its proposed changes back to the schools adjudicator for consideration. I sympathise with the confusion that that must have caused to parents in the area that the right hon. Lady represents.
	In October, the adjudicator made a decision on Kent's proposed changes, ruling that any child whose parent had named a grammar school as one of their preferred schools should be allowed to sit the 11-plus, regardless of whether a selective school was their first preference. A closing date of 30 November was set for the expression of preferences, as was a common date20 Decemberfor notification of allocation of places at non-selective schools.
	Although this decision seems to have recognised the concerns of most parents and the selective schools that complained about the original decision, many non-selective schools are now unhappy. My officials have had complaints from parents of schools choosing to interpret the adjudicator's decision in their own way, or simply ignoring it. We are investigating the complaints on a case-by-case basis and, even at this late stage, the adjudicator has considered an application from an own-admission authority school to vary its admission arrangements to take account of the October determination.
	In the Education Bill, we are proposing changes to legislation that I hope will be helpful. LEAs will be required to co-ordinate the admissions process for their areas. That does not prevent aided and foundation schools from applying their own admission policies; it recognises the need to simplify the process for parents. That was highlighted by the research that we commissioned jointly from Sheffield Hallam university and the Office for National Statistics, which was published in June. We consulted on our proposals for changes to the admissions framework, and had substantial agreement to that recommendation88 per cent. of respondents were in favour of an LEA co-ordinated approach.
	What we have proposed allows a scheme for co-ordinating the allocation of school places to be agreed locally. I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept that agreeing these matters locally is the best way to proceed. Parents will complete a single, common application form naming their preferred school or schools and return it initially to a central point. On a locally agreed date, LEAs will make one offer of a school place to the parents of each child living in their area. That has the advantage of dispensing with the unfair situation that we have often seen in which some parents hold multiple offers of school places and other parents have none.
	The system will also require greater sharing of information between admission authorities and their LEAs and between neighbouring local education authorities. That will give LEAs the information that they need to identify children who have not been placed and enable them to intervene at an earlier stage where it is necessary to do so. The new system that will be introduced if the Education Bill is enacted by the House will not deal with all the issues that the right hon. Lady raised unless the schools in the area that she represents are willing to co-operate in the best interests of parents and children, so that the confusion that they are currently experiencing in respect of the fact that there are different admission arrangements in the different schools can be lessened. Parental preference can work well only if parents have a choice between equally good schools, as I hope she will accept. That is why we have put raising standards in all schools for all children at the forefront of our agenda.
	Although GCSE results have improved and the number of children leaving school without qualifications has fallen, there is still a great deal to be done on that agenda. Part of our solution is to extend diversity in secondary schoolsI hope that the right hon. Lady welcomes this alsoso that every secondary school can develop its own unique ethos. We are expanding the successful specialist schools programme, with every school ready for specialist status being encouraged to seek it and support being given to those who are working towards that status. By 2005, we would expect to see at least 1,500 specialist schools. We are giving successful schools greater freedom, which I also hope that she welcomes, to take full responsibility for their mission to raise standards. They will be encouraged to excel and innovate, with the best schools gaining greater freedom, for example, to take new approaches to staffing or accelerated learning.
	We want to spread good practice and are establishing a schools innovation unit that will work with teachers and heads to help to stimulate and disseminate new ideas, especially in relation to catering better for pupils' different requirements and aspirations. Governing bodies will also be able to work together to create families of local schools, sharing problems and pooling resources in everyone's best interests.
	We are already encouraging selective and non-selective schools to work together by inviting partnerships of such schools to apply for new funding of up to 20,000 per partnership to develop collaborative projects. We hope that that will help to break down the perceived barriers between the two sectors and raise standards in teaching and learning. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will welcome, as I do, the fact that, of the 28 partnerships that have been approved so far, six are within Kent. The type of project in which they are engaged ranges from collaboration on post-16 courses to staff exchanges. I have some hope that, by establishing these new partnerships, there will be greater collaboration on admission arrangements, so that life can be made easier for parents when they come to choose a secondary school for their children.
	We also support greater innovation and excellence in creating new schools. If a new maintained school is required, the local education authority will advertise so that an interested party can put forward proposals and have them considered on their merits by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Any proposed new school will have to be covered by one of the existing categories, or be an academy, and will have to meet the usual statutory requirements concerning, for example, the national curriculum and teacher employment.
	We are responding to the wishes of many parents in trying to ensure that successful and popular schools can expand more easily. Perhaps that will also help the right hon. Lady. The governing bodies of successful schools will be able to appeal to the adjudicator if their proposals for expansion are turned down by the school organisation committee.
	We recognise the need to tackle low standards in schools, and we have therefore introduced new measures. Some schools that face challenging circumstances will receive a programme of support with the aim of ensuring that at least 25 per cent. of pupils at every school obtain five GCSEs at grade A to C by 2006. Kent has 28 schools where 25 per cent. or fewer pupils attained five or more GCSEs at A to C grade in 2001.
	If we can improve the achievement in those schools, we will provide diversity and better choice for parents who live in the area. All those schools received targeted school improvement grant of up to 70,000 per annum to support them in raising attainment. As the right hon. Lady knows, the schools are subject to monitoring visits from Ofsted to ensure that they focus on agreed action, which will have a sustainable effect on pupils' attainment. Local education authorities will invite, or if necessary, be instructed to invite, external partners to help turn around failing schools.
	All those plans to improve standards can come to fruition only if we have sufficient well-trained and well-motivated teachers. Therefore, our policies on teacher recruitment and retention are vital. In the lifetime of this Parliament, we will recruit 10,000 more teachers, 20,000 more support staff and 1,000 more trained bursars.
	We are also reviewing teachers' work loads so that we can find ways to ensure proper time for preparation, development and management. That work is being overseen by a group that includes representatives of teaching and head teacher associations.
	Tackling disruptive behaviour is another important factor in ensuring equality of standards. An additional 40 pupil referral units will be opened, more learning support units and learning mentors will be introduced, and parenting orders will be extended to ensure that parents take responsibility for their child's behaviour. Admission forums will be made mandatory; one of their tasks will be to consider schemes for sharing challenging pupils fairly among all schools.
	Ensuring that all parents get their preferred choice of school depends on local institutions co-operating and working together. I hope that the right hon. Lady will work in her locality to ensure that we can achieve that. The effect of our initiatives will be to raise standards. That will make parental preference more meaningful to more parents.

PETITION
	  
	Queen Elizabeth Hospital (Gateshead)

Joyce Quin: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of some 600 constituents and residents of the Gateshead area who wish to raise fundamental concerns and questions about the treatment of a number of women patients at our local hospital during the 1980s and 1990s at the hands of two consultants who have since been struck off the medical register.
	The issue has caused much local concern, and much anguish and suffering to the women affected, some of whom live in my constituency. Others live in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) and for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam).
	The petitioners request:
	That the House of Commons takes steps to obtain redress of their grievance by calling on Her Majesty's Government to set up a public inquiry into the mistreatment, negligence and misconduct of consultant Peter Silverstone and Dr. Janusz Wszeborowski and the subsequent cover-up by the Queen Elizabeth hospital authorities.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,
	That this House do now adjourn.[Angela Smith.]
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Twelve midnight.